Re: [PHP4BETA] php and MS SQL Server....

Manuel Lemos wrote: > > Hello Stig, > > On 03-Mar-00 18:18:18, you wrote: > > >> Rasmus and Stig made clear that packages need to be made Open Source to be > >> accepted. > > >This is true. While we welcome commercial use, embedding, > >redistribution or whatever of PHP, the PHP Group is not in the business > >of distributing stuff that is not open source. That can be and is > >already dealt with by others, including yourself. > > >However, I plan on building a set of FAST packages for use by our > >developers, and will use PEAR tools to build and maintain them. They > >will just not be distributed from pear.php.net. > > Ah, I think the confusion comes from two distinct things that have been > called PEAR: one is the environment to build and package code for > distribution and another is the official PHP repository site for PEAR > packages. > > >> I don't want this for my packages. This way I won't contribute at least > >> with important packages for my work like Metabase. > > >The Metabase download page doesn't say what its license is, but if the > > It is free for use as you get it. There is no explicit license which means > that as the author I still hold the rights for the code. You just can't > claim it is yours but I am not charging anybody for its use. If you want > to change it for your own use, go ahead I don't mind. If you would like to > change it somehow that it would be an improvement, it would be nice if you > would like to send me some patches, but you are not obliged. > > >open source restriction of PEAR is what prevents you from contributing, > >I don't see why you are all upset about this. > > I just don't want to have my code in another CVS repository that screws my > CVS tags so that when it is checked out from that repository, the original > tags no longer appear as they were so that people that use that version will > report me eventual problems in files with the wrong versions. > > Another thing is that even if my software complies with Open Source license, > I don't see a point to have it hosted in any other CVS repository than mine > where I can take responsability for my own backups. If you say that CVS > hosting is an optional service that you will offer only to those that want > it that's ok, but my doubt remains, are you really going to distribute code > that is not maintained in your PEAR CVS repository? We _are_ going to distribute code that is not maintained in the PEAR CVS repository. > Another thing that bugs me is the acceptance procedure. How will it work? > Who will decide? I want to make sure that no acceptance decision is going > to be affected by personal bias. I prefer if there was a more democratic > procedure where if there is going to be any judgement of conformance, it > would be voted by people that really download and use it after it is > uploaded, and not before, I don't know, this needs further thought. It's not as if the author has to walk on a path of glowing coal to get his code accepted in the PEAR tribe. As with commits to PHP itself, it will be handled in retrospect, so if someone writes misbehaving code that "violates" PEAR's guidelines, they will simply be asked to fix it. There will not be a jury that judges each and every package, the democracy should be applied when putting the guidelines down in writing, then people have to submit to the dictatorship of following documentation. :-) - Stig