PHPurple 0.1.0 pre-alpha is released

[David Mohr]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Anatoliy Belsky <anatoliy at belsky.info> wrote:
> so ok, the idea came to my mind - if I just fork the pidgin project (simply as
>  im client project), and then make the php binding based on that new one,
>  giving the php project a special permission to have a whatever license. could
>  it work?

No it would not work, because you are not the copyright holder and
thus you do not have the right to release the source code under a new
license. Your idea of forking pidgin does not change anything in that
regard (usual IANAL remark).

You don't seem to understand, but the GPL was designed to not let
happen what you are trying to do. Sometimes that's a bit extreme,
that's why the LGPL was added as a license, but as has been pointed
out a number of times, a license change for pidgin does not seem
possible.

~David

>  On Monday 03 March 2008 23:53, Shreevatsa R wrote:
>
>
> > * Quoting Anatoliy Belsky who at 2008-03-03 21:41:41+0100 (Mon) wrote
>  >
>  > > 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 ...:
>  >
>  > This has been said before, but to clarify:
>  >
>  > 1. The GPL does not place restrictions on use, only distribution. This
>  > means that your commercial projects could use your bindings equally well
>  > irrespective of whether you use the GPL or BSD licence.
>  >
>  > 2. If they were to distribute some work based on your bindings, then
>  > that work would be a derivative work of libpurple too, and irrespective
>  > of what licence *your* bindings used, the terms of the GPL would oblige
>  > their project to be distributed under the GPL as well.
>  >
>  > So in either situation, even if you had the choice to licence your
>  > bindings under the BSD licence, it would not change anything. That you
>  > do not actually have the choice is another matter (and irrelevant, as
>  > above).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Devel mailing list
>  Devel at pidgin.im
>  http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>