Re: Uploading extensions to PECL

For the sake of simplicity, I've changed the licenses and tagged a new release: https://github.com/jbboehr/php-handlebars#license (Simplified BSD) https://github.com/jbboehr/php-psr#license (Simplified BSD) https://github.com/jbboehr/handlebars.c#license (LGPLv2.1 or later) In response to Pierre's earlier statement: > It also mean lgplv2, not lgplv2 or later, which basically means v3 yet or v4 when it happens, etc. the GPL FAQ states: > Suppose a program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version” and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL version gives additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 3. When a program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version”, users will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the terms of GPL version 3—even after later versions of the GPL are available. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#VersionThreeOrLater I assume this also applies to the LGPL. If this was in reference to the issues mentioned about copying code between PHP modules, then it should be resolved by my switching the license to BSD. On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Johannes Schlüter <johannes@php.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 14:36 -0700, John Boehr wrote: > > Thanks for the comprehensive answer. > > > > > > For the handlebars PHP module, would dual (PHP or LGPL) work? > > I (personally) don't have a big issue with that. The theoretical issue > is that when copying a code pattern from another module into your code > this would require re-licensing that part also under LGPL which is > harder than relicensing between PHP/BSD/MIT-license. But this is a bit > theoretical as most such patterns most likely aren't copyright-worthy > (again: personal opinion) and (his shouldn't matter from a strict point) > I have a hard time anybody making this a legal case. > > > I offered to change the license on the 'handlebars.c' repo because the > > submission page states: > > > Note: wrappers for GPL (all versions) or LGPLv3 libraries will not > > be accepted. > > As said: I haven't checked details on LGPLv3. Thus I can't really > comment. According to the history this was added by Pierre in 2010 > > > https://github.com/php/web-pecl/commit/2ca1e5ab1493b7bd2e1ad5e2773597804202eef8 > Quick search through the archives from that time leads to this thread > http://marc.info/?l=pecl-dev&m=128301614820174 > http://marc.info/?t=128300653000001&r=1&w=2 > > > On reason why GPL won't work: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PHP-3.01 > > > For the psr extension, it might make sense to change the license on > > this to match the PHP-FIG repositories of which it is a port (MIT > > License). If the PHP License is better and a valid choice, I can do > > that as well. > > PHP License is mostly for parts of PHP Core distribution. Many people > prefer BSD or MIT for non-core parts. > > Historically some license lawyers (mostly from Debian community) saw > issues in Version 3.0 of the PHP License. PHP License used wording like > "This product includes PHP" and was interpreted as "PHP Core > distribution" this was fixed in version 3.01 of the license which now > states "This product includes PHP software" and includes not only the > core distribution. > http://php.net/license/3_0.txt > http://php.net/license/3_01.txt > > > johannes > Who's sorry about making this debate so complex, I'd love to focus on > technical stuff. :-/ > >