PHPurple 0.1.0 pre-alpha is released
anatoliy at belsky.info
Mon Mar 3 15:41:41 EST 2008
yes of course, I like GPL. I'm all in all the one, who I am, because there is
the opensource movement. I think, the programmers would be much more
narrow-minded, it there were no opensource. 70% of my knowlege comes from the
opensource. But ... it happened that a long time I've programmed PHP. Now I'm
so far, that I can write C modules for PHP ... unfortunately, PHP has also a
license ... ;) since version 4 it was changed from GPL to PHP license (which
is more like BSD license).
As I've started PHPurple, I had only the rough notion, what all that licenses
are. As I've started, I've asked questions about it at the Pidgin and PHP
mailing lists. That messages in this mailing list must be for sure in the
archives. The answer from the Pidgin mailing list was - there are so many
Pidgin developers, that there is no chance to get the permition for the PHP
The situation in the PHP world is so, that the projects for the most part
aren't GPL'ed. Because of the "spirit" (Sascha Vogt ;)) of it's license, it
may be easy reused and commercialized. I'm not a lawer, and i wan't to be it,
but I've never get stucked on such things with any of PHP scripts. I wanna
simply write good software. Does it make sense, if its use is then
The other (and not the least) part of my thougts is - i wanna to make good use
of the PHPurple, even commercially. As I've had a minimal working example
(after about 1,4 months I've started), I've already had an offer about the
use in a commercial project. I've already 2 people who would use it in their
noncommercial (but not GPL'ed) projects. It works, it will work (but I've no
any GPL projects claims at all) ... libpurple developers are cool ... but
think about it, which commercial project will become GPL'ed ever??? who would
want this? they will simply do not use the binding .. but with the license
below, they may use the binding ... hm, is this bad? there are such things,
there are such projects ... yeah, it's not GPL, but such things do exist ...:
So, as a summary - I'm very convinced, as a programmer, that some license like
below would make the life of the binding much better and easier, which would
be better for the libpurple itself. I see the freedom of the GPL in this case
as a compulsion. I don't think, that simply blindly following the bible,
someone gets to elysium. Yeah, opensource bible of course ..
Just a last minute link:
where we can see the ambiguous sense of the "derivative"
Copyright (c) 2007-2008, Anatoliy Belsky
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Source code and binaries may NOT be SOLD in any manner without the
explicit written consent of the copyright holder.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
On Monday 03 March 2008 20:06, Kevin Stange wrote:
> 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.
More information about the Devel