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@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@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@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@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat