| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plPHP -- sort of an announcement.. but not commercial |
| Date: | 2003-08-04 20:03:45 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0308041403220.10893-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > *nods* I was clarifying that a GPL lib can't be linked with a non-GPL
> > bit of code w/o the non-GPL code becoming GPL, even though it doesn't
> > apply in this case, unless Command Prompt licenses their plPHP under
> > the GPL.
>
> Were not going to license under the GPL. We did initially for a few
> brief minutes, because I was under the false impression that PHP was
> GPLd and I did not want to pay for the bandwidth for the insuing
> flameware if we didn't follow the GPL.
>
> We are not GPL fans by any means and that is why we relicensed under the
> PHP license. We are also no opposed to just giving it the standard BSD
> but the PHP license seemed to make sense.
Do we need official permission to call the language plPHP by the way?
That's the only part of the PHP license I'm wondering about.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2003-08-04 20:05:21 | Re: plPHP -- sort of an announcement.. but not commercial |
| Previous Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-08-04 19:57:55 | Re: plPHP -- sort of an announcement.. but not commercial |