Re: something I noticed re:licenses.

> You could easily reverse this to: > >> I don't see the reason to force people to dual-license. Many people are >> perfectly happy using the GPL license. Forcing them to use a BSD-like >> license makes no sense. >PHP is not a GPL'ed project. both of these arguments are flawed: why force anyone to use anything? > 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) Actually, the php license that pear points to seems to be pretty benign (which is good, not linked directly to zend, etc etc)... I'm going to read it and will seriously consider switching binarycloud to it. terribly sorry for mentioning binarycloud. _alex > -n > ........ > nathan hruby > Webmaster: UGA Department of Drama and Theatre > Project Maintainer: phpSlash, Carousel > nhruby@arches.uga.edu > ........ > > > > -- > PHP Extension and Add-on Repository (PEAR) mailing list. > Documentation can be found at http://pear.php.net/doc/pear.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-pear-unsubscribe@lists.php.net from the > mail address you subscribed with. >