Re: Account Request

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 13:39 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Alexander Kahl <akahl@iconmobile.com> wrote: > > >> And not the underlying libraries. A library can be lgpl (2 or 3), BSD, > >> MIT or the likes (but not GPL), and the PHP extension can be under the > >> PHP or BSD License. There is absolutely no problem in such cases. > > > > Excuse me if I churn up questions that have been discussed before but > > where lies the actual problem of allowing developers which license to > > choose for their own code as long as it's compatible with the PHP > > License and a Free Software License itself? > > BSD *IS* Free and *IS* compatible with the FSF Licenses. But it's not copyleft. Anyone can take your code and make something proprietary with it, not contributing back to the community.. see MS-Windows' TCP/IP stack or MacOS (both built on BSD code). MS didn't even care to give credit to the original author(s) as the license demands. Why should I write code for corporates in my free time? > > Excluding the question about "free" licenses, where is the freedom for > > the developer here? Is hijack-able code the price to pay to have it > > published on pecl? > > PHP License is not compatible with the GPL License (all versions) and > that's why we don't accept any binding using GPL code in PECL (even if > the extension is under BSD/PHP license). The GPL was never part of the discussion.. I know the GPL is incompatible with the PHP License (sadly). The LGPLvN licenses are both copyleft and allow to link with GPL-incompatible code, even proprietary one, not affecting it - the scope of the license ends there. I'm positive that allowing or even encouraging PHP extension developers to use the LGPL (and other copyleft licenses) for their code would boost development and community collaboration a lot. Regards -- alexander kahl _ developer

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part signature.asc