PHPurple 0.1.0 pre-alpha is released

[Anatoliy Belsky]

I can word it otherwise - it you always follow the GPL rules, it isn't always 
the best. The world has much more faces ... if you awaiting, that the world 
will be allways as u will, may be, you will be sometimes dissapointed (as i'm 
now) :)

On Monday 03 March 2008 21:55, Daniel Atallah wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Anatoliy Belsky <anatoliy at belsky.info>
>
> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > 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
> > license.
>
> Yes, changing the libpurple license is going to be pretty much impossible
> as there are a number of contributors who wouldn't agree to it even if
> there was a movement to do so.  This is the reality of the situation.
>
> > 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
> > restricted?
> >
> > 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
> > ...:
>
> You seem to be confused about what the GPL would restrict in such a
> situation.  Effectively the restriction is that if you distribute GPL'd
> product, you must also distribute the code to anyone who you've supplied a
> binary.  Within the constraints of the GPL you can do whatever you want
> from a commercial perspective.
>
> > 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 ..
>
> I don't follow the exact meaning the last two paragraphs, but effectively
> what you must keep in mind is that even if you don't like the restrictions
> imposed by our licensing, you must abide by them..
>
> -D