Re[2]: [PHP-PEAR] something I noticed re:licenses.

Hello Chuck, Saturday, January 20, 2001, 12:28:49 AM, you wrote: >> > Agreed. Especially since every single one mentions binarycloud. >> >> I thought I was the only one thinking this way. Thanks Nathan :) CH> It's ridiculous to beat on Alex when 4 or 5 people seem to have been taking the CH> same stance from a PHPLIB viewpoint. Alex has put a lot of work into building CH> binaryclound and thinks everyone should use it 'cause it's so nifty. The PHPLIB CH> folks claim a large installed base and that PEAR should accept the phplib code CH> as it is so as not to create compatibility problems. Everyone has their own ego CH> and their own horse to ride. Well, I guess, It's the "stone to my garden" (Russians often say) :)) Chuck, I didn't say that PEAR should accept all the PHPLib code in any case. My opinion is that if PHPLib is going PEAR, some core PHPLib components should be included (if not, there would be no PHPLib in PEAR). And this issue should be discussed here, as this IS the topic of the latest conversation. The first question is "do PEAR needs stuff built in PHPLib?". If it does, than it should be clear, if it is possible to really integrate PHPLib into PEAR at the extent so it could be said that you can run PHPLib-based applications on top of the PEAR code without breaking it, as I suppose that if PHPLib and PEAR are merged, there would be no any further developer's support for a standalone version of PHPLib. I do think that binarycloud is great, but ... having dozens of mails "go download binarycloud" is not the thing I intended to see here. I understand that a good package needs a descent publicity, but I suppose this list is a wrong place for this. -- Best regards, Max A. Derkachev mailto:kot@books.ru Symbol-Plus Publishing Ltd. phone: +7 (812) 324-53-53 http://www.Books.Ru -- All Books of Russia