Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99521
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2ad04b8f-76e5-4420-2776-5bda28f60285@fedoraproject.org>
References: <2ad04b8f-76e5-4420-2776-5bda28f60285@fedoraproject.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:06:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_nkK6h0hQRQ+C5qkkZ2XPAgQ=WNnPBHrOt+nF_zWryFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Remi Collet <remi@fedoraproject.org>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c14bb8f6c2420551fbfb9f"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Extensions License
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--001a11c14bb8f6c2420551fbfb9f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Remi Collet <remi@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> All extensions in php-src are PHP 3.01 Licensed
> (libs may, of course, have different license)
>
> Is there any strong rule about this ?
> Or is it OK to have a BSD Licensed extension ?
>
> Context: see sodium PR
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/2560
>
>
> IMHO, make sense to have only PHP Licensed ext.
>

I think we should allow BSD/MIT licenses, as they are compatible with and
less restrictive than the PHP license. TBH, the PHP license seems somewhat
dubious when applied to extensions, as most of the additional clauses are
simply not applicable (extensions do not bundle the Zend Engine and
extensions have no control over the PHP group or the PHP name).

Regards,
Nikita

--001a11c14bb8f6c2420551fbfb9f--