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? Thanks, Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat