Re: plPHP -- sort of an announcement.. but not commercial

> > >>10.Fix license
> > >
> > > Looking at the license for PHP found here:
> > >
> > > http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt
> > >
> > > it would seem to be pretty much an apache style license that doesn't allow
> > > you to relicense it without permission. but it looks BSD compatible.
> >
> > The issue was that plPHP as posted was claimed to be GPL, although there
> > isn't any notice at all in the source that I saw.
> >
> > Does the PHP license require programs that dynamically link carry
> > their license, similar to GPL (I didn't get that impression)? If
> > not, then something like PL/PHP should be licensable under BSD.
>
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's safe to link to. We could always as the
> PHP guys themselves to be sure.

I'm pretty sure that's not right. I'm no an FSF/GNU expert, but
wasn't that the point of the LGPL? I don't think a BSDL bit of code
can link with a GPL bit of code without making the BSDL code GPL'ed,
but a BSDL bit of code linked with an LGPL .so is very kosher, and
should be the discouraged minimum software requirement for contrib/
inclusion, but even then, the plPHP bits are still basically under a
GPL license that's non-viral (but only non-viral at runtime,
distribution, and linking purposes). -sc

--
Sean Chittenden