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 group(a)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
> group(a)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 group(a)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<minovotn(a)redhat.com>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat