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: 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

« previous php.pear.dev (#8626) next »