Re: Uploading extensions to PECL

Alternatively, what about the Mozilla Public License? On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:03 AM, John Boehr <jbboehr@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. Just to be clear, I'm willing to change the > license on the three LGPLv3 repositories to 'LGPLv2 or later' Is that > acceptable for inclusion in PECL? > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: > >> Yes. It doesn't explicitly disallow wrappers for LGPLv2 libraries (or >>> LGPL extensions for that matter), and doesn't explain why it's discouraged. >>> >> >> Someone else on the list may be able to give a better reason for this, >> and I think there might be some historical context involved. >> >> Disclaimer: IANAL... >> >> In general, your extension links against LGPL code. When your extension >> is installed and PHP is configured to load your extension, it can be said >> to be linking against your extension and, through your extension, also >> against the LGPL library. This gets into weird ambiguities about what >> constitutes linking and whether users are allowed to do these things in a >> legal way, according to the licenses, and while the LGPL was created to >> allow these libraries to be used in proprietary code, it has a lot of >> requirements placed on the use of their code. These requirements are >> intended to protect users of the library, but they often hinder what >> developers can do. >> >> PHP has a bit of an odd history with the GPL, and as a result, PHP chose >> to go the route of using more permissive licenses (Apache, MIT, BSD, etc.), >> and that's primarily why we encourage the use of these looser licenses for >> anything that will be distributed through pecl.php.net (and other PHP >> properties). >> >> There's nothing to restrict you from using LGPLv3 and GPL libraries in >> extensions, though. They just can't be distributed through pecl.php.net. >> >> -Ben >> > >