On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:44:31 +0100 (BST), damian@... said:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Stuart Donaldson wrote:
> > It seems this should have happened before 1.9 was even started. Now that we
> > are up to RC4, I agree with Sylvie and think this should go into 1.10 and be
> > back-ported. 1.9 could have a caveat that there is a mix of code which is
> > being cleaned up. Howeber breaking the 1.9 process like this seems reckless.
> > If the consensus is that 1.9 can't go out with mixed licenses then we should
> > consider removing the offending functionality from 1.9 altogether. Turning
> > the 1.9 release with reduced functionality, and then fixing things in 1.10.
> > This could impact a fewer number of 1.9 users, allow the 1.9 release to go
> > forward, demonstrate the importance of sticking to the licenses.
> Its not that easy, as removing the GPL code removes all functionailty
> mailin functions and other areas. Sit tight enjoy the ride, the work has
> already started!
Is the plan still to replace all files listed on
<http://tikiwiki.org/LibLicense>, including the PEAR libraries? I want
to make the case again for not rewriting PEAR libraries, but rather to
make certain that they are *unmodified*. As discussed before, the PEAR
Group indicated to me that while they are not legal experts, they
believe that Tiki shipping with unmodified PEAR libs is compatible with
their license. Furthermore, that is their precise intent, and if the
license turns out not to allow such distribution, the PEAR Group would
modify their license rather than sue us.
In short, there is no need to replace PEAR libraries since there is no
license problem, and any library written from scratch will not be
thoroughly debugged and will only delay the release of 1.9.