On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:11:46PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 21:48 9/7/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> > > besides that i can actually think of one or two usages for
> >> > a scanner in PHP which is not QPL. for exacle that reason the
> >> > your DOMXML sample is void - if we had a better DOMXML under
> >> > the same license we would use the better one.
> >>
> >> Can you share your thoughts as to how exactly GPL scanner built into
> >PHP in
> >> an odd way would improve your world for the better? Remember, the
> >scanner
> >> is already there, you can use it if you think it's useful. We're arguing
> >> on whether it should be plugged into PHP in a backwards way or not.
> >
> > the current sources say it's under the PHP-License.
>
> Ok, in which case, can you share your thoughts as to how exactly
> PHP-license scanner built into PHP in an odd way would improve your world
> for the better? Remember, the scanner is already there, you can use it if
> you think it's useful. We're arguing on whether it should be plugged into
> PHP in a backwards way or not.
if i changed the Zend scanner to be able to read obscured
(read encoded so that "joe internet" won't be able to reverse
engineer that) i would have to publish my patch under the
QPL, right? - that would make it even less "secure".
this is nothing i wanna do - but it's a valid argument for
having as much of PHP under the PHP-License as possible IMHO.
tc
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
