Re: something I noticed re:licenses.

Hi Colin, I feel that you may have confused two very separate issues here, copyright and licenses. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Viebrock" <colin@easyDNS.com> To: "Alex Black" <enigma@turingstudio.com> Cc: "PHP-Pear" <php-pear@lists.php.net> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [PHP-PEAR] something I noticed re:licenses. issue 1) > > 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. > > issue 2) > > also, what is the justification behind enforcing a licensing scheme? > > > > for example, if I contribute something, I want it to be GPL. <snip> > Second, I don't know about the copyright issue, but I imagine that > the general consensus is if you "have no intention of ever releasing > copyright on the binarycloud code", then you simply won't be making that > code part of PEAR. > There is no reason that the original author(s) of a PEAR contribution should not be able to have copyright over their own work (i.e. they own the IP). Licensing of PEAR components is quite different from this and deals with what others can do with the work, generally in areas of circumstance(private use/linking restrictions), renumeration (money/postcard/good feelings) and redistribution (copying/derived works). Regards, Alan -- Alan van den Bosch Sanguis Pty Ltd /* All generalisations are false. */