You can ship the package as two separately licensed components. The PEAR packages will retain their original licenses. If you customize the package, then you should redistribute it as a different thing under your own license, and probably rename the files/classes so that they don't confuse with the PEAR package.
The only thing you cannot do is release the unomdified PEAR package under GPL.
A better alternative is to use the LGPL, which does not force other packages to use GPL, but is still copy-left/open-source.
Greg
P.S. I'm not an expert, this is my common sense understanding of how the license works. The PHP License is less restrictive than GPL. You can do anything you want with the code as long as it doesn't affect the original code's license.
Ben Ramsey wrote:
I currently developing a project that I wish to release under a, preferably, open-source and "copy-left" license. So, I'm taking a close look at the GNU GPL for this, and it seems to serve this purpose, well. However, I am aware that the PHP license conflicts with the GNU GPL, and, thus, anything released under the PHP license cannot also be released in software under the GPL. At least, this is my assumption.
Now, to my question: if a PEAR package is released under the PHP license, and my product is under the GPL, can I include the PEAR package in my product? Under the above assumption, the answer would be no. So, what license should I release my product under to maintain it's copy-left status and yet still allow the PEAR packages to be included?
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
