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.

> 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(a)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(a)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?

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

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:

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)

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 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...

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

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

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 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)

Yes, I am fine with all this.