Re: something I noticed re:licenses.

On 1/19/01 4:04 PM, "Stig S. Bakken" <ssb@fast.no> wrote: > Alex Black wrote: >> >> ola all, >> >> in every file in pear, I'm seeing this: >> >> // Copyright (c) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 The PHP Group >> >> is this a prerequisite to being part of PEAR? >> >> I have no intention of ever releasing copyright on the binarycloud code that >> was generated at turing. >> >> also, what is the justification behind enforcing a licensing scheme? >> >> for example, if I contribute something, I want it to be GPL. > > A lot of things have been said here, and I think Rasmus once said that > everything should have the PHP license. This was not my intent > originally, I was thinking more of just requiring an open source license > (OSD). However, stuff that is distributed with PHP is another story, it > must have the PHP license. Standalone PEAR packages can in theory be > GPL'ed, but then there's the question of whether including PHP code is > considered runtime or not. If it is not considered runtime, it may be > in violation of the GPL to mix PHP licensed and GPL'ed code in a > script. Blargh. :-) > > - Stig Whatever happened to the discussion with RMS? This message: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-pear&m=97893078603364&w=3 seems to hint that the PEAR license will be different from the PHP license. Is that truly gonna be the case? (Or at least, at this point in time is that the case?) If not, I think that the runtime linking issue for packages outside the main PEAR distro could (in part) be solved by LGPL, true? (Not that the LGPL is an ideal solution, but neither is the GPL, or the current PHP license) -n ........ nathan hruby Webmaster: UGA Department of Drama and Theatre Project Maintainer: phpSlash, Carousel nhruby@arches.uga.edu ........