Re: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2

Hello Steph,

  I would like to see a limited choice in PECL. And that one should neither
include GPL nor closed source of course. To me PECL/PHP License and LGPL
sounds fine. Maybe something more open is fine as well. In general I would
only add licenses that are OSI approved though.

marcus

Saturday, February 2, 2008, 6:13:11 PM, you wrote:

> Hi Marcus,


>> Hello Wez,
>>
>>  this would mean we will stop after PDO is half sorted out. History
>> repeats. Let's discuss this and sort it out completely. Remember when the
>> dependency system was developed by you? We stopped after it worked for 
>> PDO.
>> Luckily that was the point where it worked for more. But if we had 
>> continued
>> we might as well could have figured out the whole PELC vs core thingie. 
>> Lets
>> address it now completely please.

> That's what I meant. We either address the problems and then we have an 
> infrastructure that can cope with these PDO issues, or we have to leave PECL
> out of the equation for now.

> If we're going the PECL refurbishment route, can we have some way of marking
> non-standard (as in CLA'd or differently-licensed) extensions to make 
> contributors' lives easier and future discussions of this nature moot? 
> Possibly even a separate CVS module that hooks into the PECL infrastructure?

> - Steph

>>
>> marcus
>>
>> Saturday, February 2, 2008, 7:40:55 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02.02.2008, at 03:39, Wez Furlong wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At the time we prepare a PHP release, we could then take the latest
>>>>> stable release from PECL for those drivers and put them into the
>>>>> "core" tarball (and compile them for the "core" zipfile).
>>>>
>>>> Can't we explore making this the default for all extensions? Also
>>>> while we are at it, I know a number of PECL devs are complaining
>>>> about various issues like the branching to maintain versions for
>>>> different PHP minor versions etc.
>>
>>> We can.  I suggest focusing on PDO first and making sure that that
>>> works out, and then we can gradually move other extensions in this way.
>>
>>>> IANAL, but it seems a number of additional rights granted by the PDO
>>>> license could be folded into the PHP license. Also what cannot be
>>>> folded into the PDO license, could maybe be put into an extended
>>>> license (which would need to be allowed). This way the PDO drivers
>>>> could be under the extended licensen maybe. Might make things even
>>>> less problematic?
>>
>>> Maybe.  I don't object to this, but just wanted to say again that
>>> changing the PHP license is not an objective for PDO 2.
>>
>>> --Wez.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Marcus
>>
>> -- 
>> PDO Working Group Mailing List (http://pdo.php.net)
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>> 




Best regards,
 Marcus