[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)



---------- Original Message -----------
From: Michal Novotny <minovotn redhat com>
To: Lyre <liyong skybility com>, Radek Hladik <r hladik cybersales cz>
Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange redhat com>, Daniel Veillard
<veillard redhat com>, libvirt-list redhat com
Sent: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:26:12 +0100
Subject: Re: [libvirt] Question about PHP licencing for libvirt-php
(php-libvirt for Fedora)

> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Lyre wrote:
> > On 03/10/2011 07:12 PM, Michal Novotny wrote:
> >> Well, I agree that LGPLv2+ license would be better. We need to wait 
> >> for Lyre's and Radek's reply then. 
> >
> > I agree with Radek:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Since I don't understand those license well, I also don't mind if you 
> > guys change it to the suitable one.
> >
> 
> So, is it OK to do what Daniel wrote about ? I mean this:
> 
> >  So we avoid the PHP license for our code then. Here's what we do
> >
> >  - Our code is licensed LGPLv2+
> >  - Project is named/described  'libvirt bindings for PHP'
> >  - RPM / tar.gz is named  php-libvirt  (this is in fact required by Fedora
> >    RPM guidelines for php extensions)
> >
> 
> Is that OK with you Radek and Lyre or any other idea about the licence?
> 

Yes, I am fine with all this.

> Thanks,
> Michal
> 
> -- 
> Michal Novotny<minovotn redhat com>, RHCE
> Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
------- End of Original Message -------

Radek


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