Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:21067
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051207031734.05ec2a58@zend.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:27:27 +0200
To: pierre.php@gmail.com
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <20051206225157.32307183@localhost.localdomain>
References: <438E77BA.8060509@prohost.org>
	<1133856196.439545c4de970@webmail.jdimedia.nl>
	<20051206090806.407e7799@localhost.localdomain>
	<4395DE31.6060607@lerdorf.com>
	<20051206225157.32307183@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.1.2 Release Plan
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

At 23:51 06/12/2005, Pierre wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:53:37 -0800
>rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote:
>
> > Pierre wrote:
> > > On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:03:16 +0100
> > > derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:
> > >
> > >>> * Introduce xmlwriter extension via a symlink from pecl into core
> > >>> and as other XML extension enable it by default.
> > >> Make sure that the licences gets switched back to the PHP license
> > >> then...
> > >
> > > It is already done since last week.
> > >
> > > And I still do not have some good explanation about this new
> > > requirement.
> >
> > It's not a new requirement.  It is simply the status-quo and common
> > sense.
>
>Our common senses tend to differ, it is sometimes good to clarify it :-)
>
> > All the extensions we bundle are under the same license so
> > people get a tarball with a consistent license and they don't have to
> > wade through a license soup trying to figure out if they meet all the
> > requirements of a bunch of different licenses.  We could add
> > extensions with different, but compatible licenses, but there would
> > have to be an *extremely* good reason to do so.
>
>Well, talking about extensions only, I have not a real big problem but
>the copyrights, I am reluctant to give the copyrights to the group (and
>loose it all together), or is it possible to keep original authors
>besides the PHP group?

I'm not sure why you care exactly, but from a pure legal standpoint, 
it complicates things a bit.  Does it mean that someone who wants to 
use PHP in his product name has to also come to you in addition to 
getting permission from group@php.net?  Does it mean we need to get 
your OK on any future license changes, as minor as they may be?

>About the consistent license policy inside a tarball, GDlib is
>not under the PHP License, for example.
>Or upcoming bundled libs will have to follow the same policy (lib like
>in gdlib for example)?
>
>About other licences, indeed I was thinking about BSD'ish license for
>the worst case (and certainly not lgpl&friends as they are more
>restrictive).

What's wrong with the PHP license?

Zeev