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
| From: | Jelmer Vernooij | Date: | Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:43:52 +0000 |
| Subject: | 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 | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-8626@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> > 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.
Most libraries are published under the LGPL for this kind of issues..
Libsmbclient contains a lot of the (GPL'ed) samba code though..
Btw. greetings to tpot!
Jelmer