Re: Appropriate license for packages

Stefan Neufeind wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 at 0:04, Lukas Smith wrote:

Christian Stocker wrote:

On 2/15/04 10:29 PM, Klaus Guenther wrote:

"Stefan Neufeind" <stefan@neufeind.net> wrote:

although this is a little OT, maybe somebody can help me out. Does somebody know of any talks held or articles written about choosing the right license? This would be of particular interest to me with reference to packages (like the ones shipped by PEAR).

I think it would be of use. Iirc, there was an article on licensing in the PHP Magazine International Edition, but it would be nice to have a page in the manual that describes the various licenses that are acceptable to PEAR and the benefits of each.

When reading the PHP license again I recently thought there might be paragraphs in it which completely don't go together with PEAR packages (not only but e.g. even the closing sentence "This product includes the Zend Engine" - which is not included when we distribute packages).

That is right. Perhaps it is time to create a PEAR license that is based on the PHP license, but without certain clauses -- such as the one you

Please not yet another lisence ;) If you'd like to switch or recommend something else than the PHP license, please consider the Apache 2.0 License. From http://apache.org/licenses/ :

Actually we talked about this topic a bit recently in the group list as the current faq list is quite exentsive with a few problematic ones still listed (like GPL and QPL). In general I dont feel we should come up with yet another license. If you want to be on the safe side for PEAR choose the PHP, Apache, BSD-style or LGPL license.

Totally agreed. Just leaves it open which one is the "best". This means: What are the major differences, maybe also seen from an advocates view. Thats why I asked if somebody has enough knowledge about this topic and maybe prepared an article / a talk on it. In my eyes the PHP-license does not say very much. And some of the things it says even don't apply to our "packages" at all (imho). Haven't had a closer look at the Apache, BSD or LGPL-license and compared them in- depth. But all I could do is take a "guess" which suits best. And I believe that many PEAR developers don't even think too much about licensing issues and choose e.g. PHP license because they have to choose one, not because they are convinced.

i guess all in all the lgpl is the license that diverges the most from the list. lgpl requires that you make available as source any changes you make to the library to whom ever you distribute the code to (encoded or not). the others, just like the lgpl, basically handle warrenty issues and make sure your credits are not removed. they however allow people to make their modified version closed source. thats how i read them atleast. go to opensource.org to get some better explanations. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07