Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] iDots Template

[Lars Kneschke]

Edgar Luna <address@hidden> schrieb: 
>Lars Kneschke <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Just for redords.
>> We left why we were not able to use code from PEAR as example. Because
>this
>> is no GPL or LGPL code. We don't want to reinvent the wheel again.
>Mmm, or you don't know what your are speaking or you are lying (I
>really think is the first), PEAR preferred license is PHP license,
>which is GPL incompatible so you, CAN'T (don't care which project you
>are) make a link to phpgwapi code that is GPL. We are talking for
>example of setup and scheme_proc.
>
>Quote from:
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>
>        The PHP License, Version 3.0.  This license is used by most of
>        PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free software license which is
>        incompatible with the GNU GPL.
>
>        We recommend that you not use this license for anything except
>        PHP add-ons.
I know it. But when hosted on gnu.org you are not able to use any other
license then LGPL/GPL. If they are compatible or not. PEAR was bad example
for GPL code. That was my main reason for this statement. And you are still
able to use PEAR code from LGPL.

>> We want to use code under the BSD license or other compatible Opensource
>> licenses.
>
>That won't change... the code (I'm not saying that all the code will
>be incompatible) that is incompatible is incompatible, call it
>eGroupWare or LarsGroupWare. You first must don't link or rewrite or
>take another code that do the same or re-license that code (are you
>copyright owner to do this last?).
No need to relicense. As i said we want to use code under other compatible
opensource licenses, and want not to be forced to be able to use only GPL or
LGPL.

As you can see there are many other compatible licenses:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses

>> This is the same FUD like dave is doing. Since the fork dave is telling
>that
>> we break LGPL or GPL. And now you too. I don't know where we break this
>> licenses. Maybe you can tell me. Dave was not able to do so until now.
>Is supposed to be the jscalendar, afaik you can ask to it's developer
>about this issue.
>
>Hope this helps to end this thread which don't means sense, this flame
>is on the archive, I think you don't need anything more, and you have
>very much to work, so go and do your god job.

I will ....

Cu
--
written with FeLaMiMail