Re: Suhosin as PECL extension?!?

Stefan Esser wrote:

I think you are wrong. But that's not a problem anymore if the extension is available through PECL.

This is true I am wrong, actually PHP extensions are automatically dual licensed: Zend License + PHP License This is caused simply by the fact that every PHP extension uses ZEND_GET_MODULE(modname). This is a macro that produces a function get_module(). This function is inside Zend_api.h, which is Zend License licensed. If your PHP extension is not licensed as Zend License then you relicensed code that was originally distributed under the Zend License. You cannot simply change the license of someone elses code. Even if it is a single line. Otherwise you violate the copyright of the person who originally wrote that macro.

That's not true if you are only releasing your extension in source form. The macro gets expanded at compile-time, so before you compile there is no inclusion of code. There is just a call to an API macro. But yes, for compiled extensions the license isn't explicit enough. With the exception of Windows, which most of us, including myself, unfortunately ignore completely, we tend not to distribute any binaries. All I can say is there was never any intent to place additional restrictions on binary releases.

And with Suhosin the whole scenario is even worse, because I have to duplicate larger chunks of PHP's code that are not available in old PHP versions or are not exported.

I had a quick look at the Suhosin sources the other day when I changed the rfc1867 stuff a bit, and as far as I saw you didn't include any Zend source in it, so I don't think you are hitting the Zend license there. But yes, you definitely have PHP source, so as per the license you can't call it PHP, which you aren't, you have to say it includes PHP software, which you do in your headers, so I don't see a problem there. -Rasmus