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.
[snip]
I don't know what should we do but I guess having the dual-licensing could be the best thing. We can't have the project name php-libvirt because of the PHP license :(
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) Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|