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@xxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxx>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list