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

[Michal Novotny]

On 03/10/2011 01:26 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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.


So you think LGPLv2+ is good license for the libvirt-php project? I'm 
not having reply from group at php.net yet for the permission.


>> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel

Is dual-licensing easily possible by having appropriate LICENSE files in 
the top level directory of the repository (2 files like LICENSE-PHP and 
LICENSE-LGPL2) and put the:

License:        LGPLv2+ or PHP

to the SPEC file? Should it be the best solution to do it?

Thanks,
Michal

-- 
Michal Novotny<minovotn at redhat.com>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat