---------- Original Message ----------- From: Michal Novotny <minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx> To: Lyre <liyong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Radek Hladik <r.hladik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx>, libvirt-list@xxxxxxxxxx Sent: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:26:12 +0100 Subject: Re: 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@xxxxxxxxxx>, RHCE > Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat ------- End of Original Message ------- Radek -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list