Re: something I noticed re:licenses.

> 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. :-) Actually what I said was that everything in PEAR should have the same license. I don't really care which license that is. I would prefer an Apache-style license like the PHP one. If each PEAR component had a different license it would be very difficult for someone to figure out what they could use and what they couldn't. We don't want that. So yes, as far as I am concerned, a prerequisite of being part of PEAR is to put the contribution under whatever unified license is chosen for PEAR. -Rasmus