PHPurple 0.1.0 pre-alpha is released

[Kevin Stange]

Anatoliy Belsky wrote:
> yeah, now i know ... i must fall back to gpl ... hm ... ok ... this is what i 
> wanted to avoid ... because then the binding isn't so welcome, as if it would 
> be with that art of the bsd license
> 

I perceive that for some reason you /do/ think that there's something 
wrong with licensing your code under the GPL, but when I asked before 
you said without a doubt that you didn't have anything against the GPL. 
  In the context before I was asking about whether you had any reason 
that you felt the GPL was wrong for your project.

So far you have not given such a reason, but you have by your statements 
made it seem like a hassle or a major problem to have to switch 
licenses.  Could you please explain to us why you feel that the BSD 
license is more appropriate for your project?  Perhaps we can clear up 
some GPL misconception that is making you feel it's not the right 
license here.

Either way, you should still relicense, if for no other reason than to 
establish a clear line that any derivative works of both libpurple and 
your project combined (and logically anything derivative of your project 
would implicitly be of libpurple) must be released under the GPL.  That 
requires little more than replacing the license file in your code (and 
license headers in your source files) and maybe a tiny note on the web 
page for your project.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080303/84fe6de3/attachment.sig>