On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Remi Collet <r...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> All extensions in php-src are PHP 3.01 Licensed >> (libs may, of course, have different license) >> >> Is there any strong rule about this ? >> Or is it OK to have a BSD Licensed extension ? >> >> Context: see sodium PR > > I think we should allow BSD/MIT licenses, as they are compatible with and > less restrictive than the PHP license. TBH, the PHP license seems somewhat > dubious when applied to extensions, as most of the additional clauses are > simply not applicable (extensions do not bundle the Zend Engine and > extensions have no control over the PHP group or the PHP name). > I agree that BSD/MIT being more permissive is probably fine as far as licensing goes. In fact, there are bundled libraries in ext/*/ which are (obviously) not PHP licensed, so drawing an arbitrary line at one point in ext as opposed to another is a bit... weird. Obviously we need to be very careful about *which* licenses are permitted, but BSD/MIT feel like no-brainers to me.
-Sara Nit; I disagree with your second sentence. While the initial commit may not relate to anyone with any degree of control over the engine or core, it will inevitably be touched by those individuals over time. But that's just a digression since ultimately the PHP release is nothing without the engine and core, so the PHP licensed nature of those parts is sufficient. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
