mose wrote: >> -lib/class_calendar.php: license/copyright status unclear.
> - I think it was written by luis, as argentine, brazilian and english > are the only translations bundled in, with ar as default, and luis is > agrentine. We could ask him. Ok, so that's probably OK. >> -lib/class_rdf_parser.php: license/copyright status unclear. > - that lib was writen by luis, the initial author of tikiwiki, He put all of Tikiwiki under LGPL, so as long as he owns the copyright it should be fine. > it's taken from > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=53613 > under gpl licence It doesn't matter if he released it somewhere else under different license, he's allowed to do that. So those two are pretty much OK. >> Moreover some PEAR modules in Tikiwiki are under PHP license (which is >> unacceptable), but have now been relicensed. These need to be packaged > Can you explain more in details why it's unacceptable to have php > licenced code in LGPL application ? It doesn't have anything to do with LGPL. Rather, there are problems with the license itself. People claim that it is either non-free (for Debian at least), or can only be applied to PHP itself, or to software by the PHP group etc... Check debian-legal for lengthy discussions... It's up to the Tikiwiki project if you care about this issue. Many PEAR packages have now been relicensed, so it would suffice to update the PEAR packages. In Debian we will use external packages anyway. Marcus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
