Re: license chaos, PHP vs GPL

> > On 14.02.2008, at 17:09, till wrote: > >> From the little I understand about licenses, BSD and GPL get along >> much better, correct? The complications come from the PHP license >> (PEAR, Net_SMTP, DB) and GPL license (which is RoundCube). RoundCube's >> install practice pretty much follows the (infamous) "unzip & go" >> approach (well, "unzip, edit two config files & go"), which is also >> why we bundle all dependencies. > > Well I guess the main reasons why the PHP license is GPL incompatible > are points inside the PHP license that are irrelevant to PHP. So maybe > we really do need our own license. The kicker, legally, is that distributing GPL-incompatible code with GPL code is verboten. You might be able to ship a GPL-ony RC, and ship a separate package with the deps, all PHP-licensed, and be in the clear. This is how Fedora works, as we have code using myriad licenses, but all in separate packages. >> My second question is - is it generally discouraged to bundle PEAR >> packages? I've never heard of that and see it as common practice in a >> lot of OSS which relies on packages from PEAR. But someone raised >> their concerns that this is the case. > > Its common practice indeed. And there is generally nothing > fundamentally wrong with that. I guess Greg has been trying to promote > however, that such copies would be shipped with a PEAR registry, so > that users could easily upgrade those packages. If that works, and if it only touches the bundled versions, that's fine, but we'd strip that out or disable in in the Fedora RPM since yum would handle updating the rpm versions of the PEAR code. > regards, > Lukas > -- novus ordo absurdum