Hi all, Dne 10.3.2011 12:12, Michal Novotny napsal(a):
On 03/10/2011 12:05 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence. However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence because of following paragraph:Can we check with Radek if it's okay to switch to LGPLv2 ?I assume you actually mean LGPLv2+ (ie the or-later variety)Well, I agree that LGPLv2+ license would be better. We need to wait for Lyre's and Radek's reply then. Michal
Unfortunately answer to this simple question is more complicated than I would like. The project is "just" binding between two projects. It means that there is no cutting edge algorithms and/or programing methods used. So I prefer to use license that will allow widespread use of the project and ensure that if someone needs some additional function he/she will add them and share with others. But would this show to be more restrictive I do not mind so much lowering this requirement to be voluntary. On the other hand the project is binding two projects with different licences together. And thats the part where it gets complicated. The LGPL style licence would suit my ideas from last paragraph. But on the PHP website ( http://www.php.net/license/contrib-guidelines-code.php ):
The libvirt itself is under LGPL. When I was creating the spec file I had to fill in some licence. And to be honest I was more focused on getting the spec file working than on choosing the licence so I just put PHP in there. To summarize this: I do not mind to licence my code under any version of LGPL. If you think that its better than PHP licence, then its ok with me. I would not mind having it under PHP licence if it would help to spread the project even for the cost of not requiring to publish the changes. And about the name. I do not mind changing it as for the Fedora or because of the PHP restrictions. It is the same story, I started to code the extension, I had to learn how to do it, etc... so I did not solve the licencing issue and I did not notice that PHP has some restrictions on naming...* GPL or LGPL licensed code cannot be used as a basis for any derived work contributed to PHP. * Extensions which link GPL'd libraries will not be accepted. * Extensions which link to LGPL libraries will be strongly discouraged.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature