On 03/09/2011 07:45 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/09/2011 11:34 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
So, the libvirt-php module would have to be under either the PHP license,
or something less restrictive.
Regards,
Daniel
Well, I've been reading PHP-LICENSE-3.01 file of php-pecl-ssh2 package
and I found out following in the PHP license:
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from gr...@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
In fact, that paragraph is the very reason that the PHP license is
GPL-incompatible (note, that's GPL-incompatible, not LGPL-incompatible,
so we might still be okay with LGPL instead of PHP unless I'm missing
something else).
Right, so it should be OK to distribute it under LGPL license ? If so,
that could be nice.
This way we won't be able to call it php-libvirt unless we write to
gr...@php.net for permission. Should we use the PHP license, i.e. ask
for the permission, or should we move to some other license? Any ideas
what license would be good for this?
The same gnu.org page states that PHP add-ons should be the only
projects considering use of the PHP license, but libvirt-php falls into
that category, so it's probably worth shooting gr...@php.net a mail
asking them the question.
So, asking them for permission could be probably a good thing. Should I
write an e-mail about whether we can call it php-libvirt and if it's OK
with them not to violate the license?
Thanks,
Michal
--
Michal Novotny<minov...@redhat.com>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
