On 03/10/2011 02:19 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:46:31PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
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.
[snip]
I don't know what should we do but I guess having the dual-licensing
could be the best thing. We can't have the project name php-libvirt
because of the PHP license :(
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)
Regards,
Daniel
OK, done. I've already commented this bugzilla and we'll see...
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
