[libvirt] Question about PHP licencing for libvirt-php (php-libvirt for Fedora)

[Michal Novotny]

On 03/09/2011 07:45 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/09/2011 11:34 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
>>>     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 at 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"
> In fact, that paragraph is the very reason that the PHP license is
> GPL-incompatible (note, that's GPL-incompatible, not LGPL-incompatible,
> so we might still be okay with LGPL instead of PHP unless I'm missing
> something else).
>

Right, so it should be OK to distribute it under LGPL license ? If so, 
that could be nice.


>> This way we won't be able to call it php-libvirt unless we write to
>> group at 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?
> The same gnu.org page states that PHP add-ons should be the only
> projects considering use of the PHP license, but libvirt-php falls into
> that category, so it's probably worth shooting group at php.net a mail
> asking them the question.
>

So, asking them for permission could be probably a good thing. Should I 
write an e-mail about whether we can call it php-libvirt and if it's OK 
with them not to violate the license?

Thanks,
Michal


-- 
Michal Novotny<minovotn at redhat.com>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat