Re: [libvirt] Question about PHP licencing for libvirt-php (php-libvirt for Fedora)

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 between two > projects. It means that there is no cutting edge algorithms and/or > programing methods used. So 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. But > would this show to be more restrictive I do not mind so much > lowering this requirement to be voluntary. > On the other hand the project is binding two projects with > different licences together. And thats the part where it gets > complicated. The LGPL style licence would suit my ideas from last > paragraph. But on the PHP website ( > http://www.php.net/license/contrib-guidelines-code.php ): > >> * GPL or LGPL licensed code cannot be used as a basis for any derived work contributed to PHP. >> * Extensions which link GPL'd libraries will not be accepted. >> * Extensions which link to LGPL libraries will be strongly discouraged. The discouragement of LGPL libraries is for stuff that is being contributed into the core PHP project codebase. libvirt-php is a separate project, so as long as the license are compatible from a legal POV we're fine.

> The libvirt itself is under LGPL. When I was creating the spec file > I had to fill in some licence. And to be honest I was more focused > on getting the spec file working than on choosing the licence so I > just put PHP in there. > To summarize this: I do not mind to licence my code under any > version of LGPL. If you think that its better than PHP licence, then > its ok with me. I would not mind having it under PHP licence if it > would help to spread the project even for the cost of not requiring > to publish the changes. > And about the name. I do not mind changing it as for the Fedora or > because of the PHP restrictions. It is the same story, I started to > code the extension, I had to learn how to do it, etc... so I did not > solve the licencing issue and I did not notice that PHP has some > restrictions on naming... IMHO, we should just go for LGPLv2+, but as an alternative we could also dual-license it, as "LGPLv2+ or PHP" to make the PHP community more comfortable with it. Regards, Daniel