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
: 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
于 2011/3/11 19:10, Radek Hladík 写道:
Yes, I am fine with all this.
me too :-)
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
于 2011年03月10日 01:17, Daniel P. Berrange 写道:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi,
I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into
the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in
Fedora (but
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the
License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence.
However by naming it
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:05:16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt
Hi all,
Dne 10.3.2011 12:12, Michal Novotny napsal(a):
On 03/10/2011 12:05 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Hi,
I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into the
libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in Fedora (but
renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the licencing. The
licence in the SPEC file (by Lyre) is set to PHP however the licence
file
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi,
I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into
the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in
Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the
licencing. The licence in
On 03/09/2011 06:17 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi,
I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into
the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in
Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but
On 03/09/2011 06:17 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi,
I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into
the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in
Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but
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
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,
19 matches
Mail list logo
