[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Question about PHP licencing for libvirt-php (php-libvirt for Fedora)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:03:57PM +0100, Radek Hladik wrote:
> Hi all,
> >Well, I agree that LGPLv2+ license would be better. We need to wait for
> >Lyre's and Radek's reply then.
> >
>   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 ):
> >    * 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.

The discouragement of LGPL libraries is for stuff that is being contributed
into the core PHP project codebase. libvirt-php is a separate project, so
as long as the license are compatible from a legal POV we're fine.

> 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...

IMHO, we should just go for  LGPLv2+, but as an alternative we could
also dual-license it, as  "LGPLv2+ or PHP" to make the PHP community
more comfortable with it.

|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]