On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > >>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
PHP is NOT GPLd. It's got a license much like the apache license.
There is no linking clause. The basics of it are:
-- maintain copyright notice, whether distributed in binary or source.
-- Don't use the PHP name to endorse stuff.
-- anything with PHP in the name needs they permission
-- Must contain acknowledgement and the web site address
-- No one other than the PHP Group has the right to modify the terms
applicable to covered code created under this License.
That last one basically means you can't relicense it.