[libvirt] Question about PHP licencing for libvirt-php (php-libvirt for Fedora)
Hi, I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the licencing. The licence in the SPEC file (by Lyre) is set to "PHP" however the licence file describes the GPL licence. My question is whether somebody does know whether it's OK to write a PHP extension under GPL licence or whether we need the PHP licence for this. Anybody knows? Thanks a lot for your reply, Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi, I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the licencing. The licence in the SPEC file (by Lyre) is set to "PHP" however the licence file describes the GPL licence.
My question is whether somebody does know whether it's OK to write a PHP extension under GPL licence or whether we need the PHP licence for this.
The PHP license is *not* GPL compatible https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PHP_License 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 -- |: 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 :|
On 03/09/2011 06:17 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi, I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the licencing. The licence in the SPEC file (by Lyre) is set to "PHP" however the licence file describes the GPL licence.
My question is whether somebody does know whether it's OK to write a PHP extension under GPL licence or whether we need the PHP licence for this. The PHP license is *not* GPL compatible
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PHP_License 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.
What about using the LGPLv2+ licence then? php-shout is using it according to http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=php-shout.git;a=blob_plain;f=php-sho... Thanks, Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
On 03/09/2011 06:17 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi, I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the licencing. The licence in the SPEC file (by Lyre) is set to "PHP" however the licence file describes the GPL licence.
My question is whether somebody does know whether it's OK to write a PHP extension under GPL licence or whether we need the PHP licence for this. The PHP license is *not* GPL compatible
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PHP_License 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" 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? Thanks, Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
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).
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. -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
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
于 2011年03月10日 01:17, Daniel P. Berrange 写道:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi, I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the licencing. The licence in the SPEC file (by Lyre) is set to "PHP" however the licence file describes the GPL licence.
My question is whether somebody does know whether it's OK to write a PHP extension under GPL licence or whether we need the PHP licence for this. The PHP license is *not* GPL compatible
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PHP_License 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 The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
于 2011年03月10日 01:17, Daniel P. Berrange 写道:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:05:22PM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hi, I don't know who's the right person to ask so I'm posting this into the libvir-list. We're going to have the libvirt-php package in Fedora (but renamed to php-libvirt only) but I don't know about the licencing. The licence in the SPEC file (by Lyre) is set to "PHP" however the licence file describes the GPL licence.
My question is whether somebody does know whether it's OK to write a PHP extension under GPL licence or whether we need the PHP licence for this. The PHP license is *not* GPL compatible
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PHP_License 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 The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence. However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence because of following paragraph: 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" I wrote to group@php.net already asking them for that permission and we shall see what they reply to me. Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence. However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence because of following paragraph:
Can we check with Radek if it's okay to switch to LGPLv2 ? That would be simpler and more in line with libvirt licencing itself, Radek, Lyre, would you agree with such a change ? thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence. However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence because of following paragraph:
Can we check with Radek if it's okay to switch to LGPLv2 ?
I assume you actually mean LGPLv2+ (ie the or-later variety)
That would be simpler and more in line with libvirt licencing itself,
Radek, Lyre, would you agree with such a change ?
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 :|
On 03/10/2011 12:05 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence. However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence because of following paragraph: Can we check with Radek if it's okay to switch to LGPLv2 ? I assume you actually mean LGPLv2+ (ie the or-later variety)
Well, I agree that LGPLv2+ license would be better. We need to wait for Lyre's and Radek's reply then. Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
Hi all, Dne 10.3.2011 12:12, Michal Novotny napsal(a):
On 03/10/2011 12:05 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence. However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence because of following paragraph: Can we check with Radek if it's okay to switch to LGPLv2 ? I assume you actually mean LGPLv2+ (ie the or-later variety)
Well, I agree that LGPLv2+ license would be better. We need to wait for Lyre's and Radek's reply then.
Michal
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 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... Radek
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 -- |: 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 :|
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.
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.
So you think LGPLv2+ is good license for the libvirt-php project? I'm not having reply from group@php.net yet for the permission.
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
Is dual-licensing easily possible by having appropriate LICENSE files in the top level directory of the repository (2 files like LICENSE-PHP and LICENSE-LGPL2) and put the: License: LGPLv2+ or PHP to the SPEC file? Should it be the best solution to do it? Thanks, Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
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.
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
Well, I'm thinking about the licensing thing here for the project and unfortunately it's not that easy unless we use the dual-license instead of PHP license. LGPLv2+ license could be good as well if appropriate however according to the Fedora Project naming scheme [1] we have to have the project starting with "php-" and therefore php-libvirt. I've been reading the PHP-License-3.01 as well at [2] which states something about not having "PHP" in it's name: [quote]* Q.* I've written a project in PHP that I'm going to release as open source, and I'd like to call it PHPTransmogrifier. Is that OK? *A.* We cannot really stop you from using PHP in the name of your project unless you include any code from the PHP distribution, in which case you would be violating the license. See Clause 4 in the PHP License v3.01 <http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt>. But we would really prefer if people would come up with their own names independent of the PHP name. "Why?" you ask. You are only trying to contribute to the PHP community. That may be true, but by using the PHP name you are explicitly linking your efforts to those of the entire PHP development community and the years of work that has gone into the PHP project. Every time a flaw is found in one of the thousands of applications out there that call themselves "PHP-Something" the negative karma that generates reflects unfairly on the entire PHP project. We had nothing to do with PHP-Nuke, for example, and every bugtraq posting on that says "PHP" in it. Your particular project may in fact be the greatest thing ever, but we have to be consistent in how we handle these requests and we honestly have no way of knowing whether your project is actually the greatest thing ever. So, please, pick a name that stands on its own merits. If your stuff is good, it will not take long to establish a reputation for yourselves. Look at Zope, for example, that is a framework for Python that doesn't have Python in the name. Smarty as well doesn't have PHP in the name and does quite well. [/quote] 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 :( Michal [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme [2] http://www.php.net/license/index.php#faq-lic -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
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 :|
On 03/10/2011 02:19 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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 OK, done. I've already commented this bugzilla and we'll see...
Thanks, Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
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.
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
---------- 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
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:05:16AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence. However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence because of following paragraph:
Can we check with Radek if it's okay to switch to LGPLv2 ?
I assume you actually mean LGPLv2+ (ie the or-later variety)
right :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
participants (8)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Daniel Veillard -
Eric Blake -
Lyre -
Michal Novotny -
Radek Hladik -
Radek Hladík
-
李勇