---------- Original Message ----------- From: Michal Novotny <minovotn@redhat.com> To: Lyre <liyong@skybility.com>, Radek Hladik <r.hladik@cybersales.cz> Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>, Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>, libvirt-list@redhat.com Sent: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:26:12 +0100 Subject: 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 with Radek:
I prefer to use license that will allow widespread use of the project and ensure that if someone needs some additional function he/she will add them and share with others.
Since I don't understand those license well, I also don't mind if you guys change it to the suitable one.
So, is it OK to do what Daniel wrote about ? I mean this:
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)
Is that OK with you Radek and Lyre or any other idea about the licence?
Yes, I am fine with all this.
Thanks, Michal
-- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat ------- End of Original Message -------
Radek