Re: Re: peclweb /public_html package-new.php

The distinction is that it is fine to write an extension that links against an LGPL'ed library whereas you may not write a extension that exclusively links against a GPL'ed library. Well, you may, of course, but we can't host it in PECL. As for the extension code itself, I don't see any reason to make that LGPL'ed. Pick a BSD'ish license to be consistent with all the other extensions. -Rasmus On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, Wez Furlong wrote: > PHP Group specified that we should, as a rule, avoid any license > containing the letters GPL (in that order). > > Rationale: it's best just to steer clear of the whole RMS thing, just in case. > > --Wez. > > On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:53:29 -0700, Sara Golemon <saramg@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > > + $_POST['license'] = trim($_POST['license']); > > > + > > > + if (!strcasecmp($_POST['license'], "GPL") || > > > + !strcasecmp($_POST['license'], "LGPL")) { > > > + display_error("Illegal license type. PECL packages CANNOT be GPL/LGPL > > licensed and thus MUST NOT be linked to GPL code. Talk to > > pecl-dev@lists.php.net for more information."); > > > + $jumpto = 'license'; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + > > > > > What's wrong with LGPL as a license? > > > > -Sara > > -- > PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >