license

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Hi,

IANAL but ..

PHPCR is currently licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, which is not compatible with GPLv2, it is however GPLv3 compatible.
At any rate Drupal for example is currently GPLv2+ which would not work.
I am also not sure how this actually plays out with PHPCR ODM being LGPLv2.1.
For Midgard I am not sure which parts are LGPL and GPL, but we might be in trouble there too.

At any rate the question is now if we need to change the license to MIT, dual license to MIT .. or something else ..
We made the license Apache a while back believing this would be liberal enough and would ease bringing things under the Apache project if necessary. Furthermore the JCR guys have gone on record to say that JCR is also Apache licensed.

Tricky business ..

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@pooteeweet.org

[David Buchmann]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi,

i am no fan of license discussions. i know it is relevant but its not
interesting :-)

i am ok to dual and triple license if this helps anybody to use phpcr.
do we need an ok from the jcr license owners for that?

cheers,david

- --
Liip AG // Agile Web Development // T +41 26 422 25 11
CH-1700 Fribourg // PGP 0xA581808B // www.liip.ch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk+NMbYACgkQqBnXnqWBgIvs2QCfftJAnSBeg77tez1VW0i8Cl7i
jZkAnAk/cJwAXJJdixYbqqLf9vtJM5Tc
=Vc5o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:02 , David Buchmann wrote:

> i am ok to dual and triple license if this helps anybody to use phpcr.
> do we need an ok from the jcr license owners for that?

i dont think we necessarily have to .. even as we did reimplement their API there were a lot of changes both on the interface and the implementation level. but it does turn something that is totally clear into a bit of a grayish area.

[Piotr Pokora]

Hi!

> For Midgard I am not sure which parts are LGPL and GPL, but we might be in
> trouble there too.

Midgard itself is LGPL.

Dependencies:

* GLib - LGPL
* Libgda - LGPL
* Libxml - MIT

Piotras

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On Apr 16, 2012, at 22:26 , Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

> Hi,
>
> IANAL but ..
>
> PHPCR is currently licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, which is not compatible with GPLv2, it is however GPLv3 compatible.
> At any rate Drupal for example is currently GPLv2+ which would not work.
> I am also not sure how this actually plays out with PHPCR ODM being LGPLv2.1.
> For Midgard I am not sure which parts are LGPL and GPL, but we might be in trouble there too.

FYI: PHPCR ODM is now published under the MIT license.

However it uses Doctrine Common, which is still LGPL, but will soon be MIT as well:
http://dlm.beberlei.de/licenses/projects

[Henri Bergius]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <m...@pooteeweet.org> wrote:
>> PHPCR is currently licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, which is not compatible with GPLv2, it is however GPLv3 compatible.
>> At any rate Drupal for example is currently GPLv2+ which would not work.
>> I am also not sure how this actually plays out with PHPCR ODM being LGPLv2.1.
>> For Midgard I am not sure which parts are LGPL and GPL, but we might be in trouble there too.

Midgard is all LGPL so there shouldn't be a problem using it as a
library for programs under other licenses.

The main difference to MIT is that LGPL libraries like Midgard are
still copyleft, meaning that modifications you make to Midgard itself
have to be shared, but not those to software just using Midgard as a
library.

> Lukas Kahwe Smith

/Henri

--
Henri Bergius
Motorcycle Adventures and Free Software
http://bergie.iki.fi/

Jabber: henri....@gmail.com
Microblogs: @bergie

[Benjamin Eberlei]

Why is Drupal not invoking the GPL update clause? Apache is a good license imho, no need to relicense in my opinion.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHPCR User Group Mailinglist" group.
To post to this group, send email to phpcr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to phpcr-users...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/phpcr-users?hl=en.

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On May 12, 2012, at 08:46 , Benjamin Eberlei wrote:

> Why is Drupal not invoking the GPL update clause? Apache is a good license imho, no need to relicense in my opinion.

I agree.

I would really prefer to just stick with a single license and apache is overall a good license indeed.

Will have to see how this affects the potential collaboration with Ariadne CMS:
http://pooteeweet.org/blog/2088/2091#m2091

[Larry Garfield]

Legally that would be easy; practically we have to get community consensus behind it, and there isn't a big push for it at the moment.  (The people who would be leading that charge are otherwise occupied, like me <g>.)  Also, there will be push back because a number of large businesses involved in Drupal are very GPLv3-adverse (eg, Microsoft, who is a regular sponsor of Drupal events). 

I'd prefer for us to go GPLv3, but it's not a simple process in practice.  Any recommendations on good talking points for it would be welcome.

--Larry Garfield

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Common is now also MIT.

so PHPCR ODM is now entirely MIT using the Apache licensed interfaces from PHPCR

[David Buchmann]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

great, thanks for coordinating lukas!

cheers,david

- --
Liip AG // Agile Web Development // T +41 26 422 25 11
CH-1700 Fribourg // PGP 0xA581808B // www.liip.ch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/HJmAACgkQqBnXnqWBgIv2tgCghf+iPJ110ceD7KjMUCqPTEqF
gKgAoJ51gY9G7/NRVcR7wEXbSKHeZriH
=yjr2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----