Re: Was MPL under consideration of good licenses for PEAR?

From: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:06:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Was MPL under consideration of good licenses for PEAR?
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Groups: php.pear.dev 
Request: Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-46430@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
On 4/24/07, Justin Patrin <papercrane@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/24/07, Helgi Þormar <helgith@gmail.com> wrote: On 4/24/07, Justin Patrin <papercrane@gmail.com> wrote:
We would of course love for Mozilla to be contributing packages to PEAR. The biggest problem with licenses is whether or not it allows commercial use. The second biggest is whether it is GPL compatible. The PHP License, for example, is not GPL compatible and so now it is either discouraged or not allowed (another thing the Group should decide). I know that Firefox had some recent license problems when it comes to the branding (Graydon explained some of this at the Monotone Summit). Would these apply to the MPL?
PHP license 3.0.1 fixed that iirc IIRC it didn't. This discussion was after that change. The 3.01 update had to do essentially with making the PHP-specific clauses PHP -specific. The PHP License still doesn't really make sense for anything but PHP. I would suggest we have people use more generic licenses.
Ahh yes you are right, faulty memory, sorry. We did that right before 3.01, as a result the Validate group got BSD as did many others, maybe we need to resume that effort ? :) At least for packages not using 3.01 but this shouldn't be a part of this current discussion so well, lets leave it at this for now. On with the MPL matter! - Helgi

« previous php.pear.dev (#46430) next »