Re: Re: Introduction and new PHP extension: php_rsync

hi, 2011/5/10 Anatoliy Belsky <ab@php.net>: > Hey Johannes, > > thanks for the feedback. > >> Best is not to bundle the LGPL code (or bundle it in a way that two >> distinct libraries (.so, .dynlib, .dll) are being created. > > There is another branch in the git repository, where the librsync isn't > bundled. So i think there is no issue with the license cause this branch > is supposed to be taken into the pecl. The branch with the bundled > librsync would stay in the github and could be used by people who prefer > to compile the php_rsync from source as a single .so . Another point for > the bundled version is to compile it easier on windows, where creating > shared objects means some additional overhead, hence no librsync version > for windows exists. > > There was docref errors before exceptions. The exceptions came as > preparation for the OO interface. We would let the exceptions stay as an > OO interface will come anyways. > > The other fixes you've suggested do make sense anyway, but are trivial > and can be done quickly. There is no problem to bundle a lgpl (2.x only, not 3). The restrictions are about modifications applied to the source of the given bundled library (librsync in this case). If you modify it for whatever reasons, you have to submit the patches upstream and release the code as well under the LGPL, while the rest of your project can remain under the new BSD license. Btw, we had (or maybe still have) lgpl bundled in the core as well. I did not review the code but I'm all for having this pkg in pecl. Fixes and improvements can be done after the initial approval :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org