Re: Re: cvs: pear /PECL/smbc CREDITS IMPORTANT LICENSE Makefile.in config.m4 package.xml php_smbc.h smbc.c /PECL/smbc/tests 001.phpt 002.phpt

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Peter Bowyer wrote: > At 20:14 22/08/02 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >Yes, I have discussed this with him and this is a perfectly suitable > >solution that he has no issue with. But, usually the people who develop > >libraries and put them under the GPL do so because they do not want the > >code to be re-usable under non-GPL terms, and by granting PHP permission > >to use it they are opening themselves up somewhat. In this particular > >case I believe the exposure to be minimal as there is no libsmbclient code > >in the actual extension and the only thing required is a statement from > >the Samba team that PHP is allowed to link libsmbclient against this > >particular extension. > > I suppose you could always remove clause 6 of the licence and then it would > be GPL compatible... although I can understand why it's there. Clause 6 is actually gone from the current license (see the license in current CVS), but that is not what makes it incompatible with the GPL. It is the restriction on calling something else Apache and PHP in both the Apache and PHP licenses that is the problem. It is sort of an odd problem. The Apache and PHP licenses are much looser in that you can do almost anything you want with the code, including using it in commercial products. As such, the only thing we, as developers, have left is the name. We don't want some company coming out with "PHP 5.0" tomorrow, as it would confuse everyone. We also don't want to see "PHP Enterprise Edition" or any other crap like that. Companies need to establish their own brands and not just ride the coat tails of ours. Since the GPL does not allow unrestricted commercial redistribution they don't have the same issue with the name and they see this as a non-free redistribution restriction and want it gone for us to be GPL-compatible. -Rasmus