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

On Monday 13 September 2004 15.36, John Coggeshall wrote: > 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.. Linking to LGPL libraries is fine, but not using LGPL as license for your PHP _extension_, you should use a BSD'ish license for the extension. /Magnus -- Leela: "If you could change form, why didn't you change it in the one place that counts?"