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

On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 21:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > 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. It was my understanding that LGPL licenses were "acceptable" although not the ideal case -- did that opinion change at some point? If there isn't an explicit reason against the LGPL, I'd argue that its a bad thing not to allow extensions based on LGPL libraries in the repository. There are some fairly useful ones (such as libgcrypt), which are licensed under LGPL.. Yes yes I know I can always host this stuff somewhere else, but if we don't have to I don't see why we should be forced to is all. John