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

[Radek Hladik]

Hi all,

Dne 10.3.2011 12:12, Michal Novotny napsal(a):
> On 03/10/2011 12:05 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:07AM +0100, Michal Novotny wrote:
>>>> On 03/10/2011 07:12 AM, Lyre wrote:
>>>>> The spec was copied from Radek's original php-libvirt with the
>>>>> License untouched, I'm not sure about it.
>>>>>
>>>> Ok Lyre, then I guess Radek wanted to stick with the PHP licence.
>>>> However by naming it php-libvirt he was violating the licence
>>>> because of following paragraph:
>>> Can we check with Radek if it's okay to switch to LGPLv2 ?
>> I assume you actually mean LGPLv2+ (ie the or-later variety)
>>
>
> Well, I agree that LGPLv2+ license would be better. We need to wait for
> Lyre's and Radek's reply then.
>
> Michal
>

   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 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...

Radek

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3644 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20110310/f42aaee8/attachment-0001.p7s>