Re: PECL site improvements
| From: | Pierre Joye | Date: | Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:20:53 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PECL site improvements | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pecl.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pecl-dev+get-11207@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
hi Chris,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Christopher Jones
<christopher.jones@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> This change just blocked me from releasing OCI8 on PECL. OCI8 has
> traditionally had the license information
> (http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt) mentioned appropriately in the
> source code and package.xml files.
>
> I only recall limited discussion [1] around this topic and no
> discussion of hard enforcement.
We did discuss it and it is actually a requirement from a licensing
point of view for all non source releases, be for Windows DLLs or
distributions.
>
> The upload form site shouldn't block valid uploads. It should do one
> of:
Yes, it should. We had tried long enough to get people solve the
license problem by clearly defining it in a LICENSE/COPYING file, for
the extension or bundled libraries licenses.
> 1. Only warn about a missing file
>
> 2. Recognize the package.xml license, perhaps just a special case
> recognizing the PHP license:
> <license
> uri="http://www.php.net/license">PHP</license>
> (This would be my preference.)
>
> 3. Neither of the above.
>
> If distributions (such as Windows DLL builds) need to supply license
> information:
>
> 1. They can parse package.xml and locate the correct licence.
>
> 2. They can distribute the source code, if that is a recognizable
> part of the license requirement (IANAL)
>
> 3. They can decide not to make distributions if they can't determine
> the license in a usable form for their use.
Option 4:
Add an empty one until you get the Oracle management realize that it
is a must. Or is it also something you can't do?
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org