phpxpath-users

Relicensing - was - meaning of Php.XPath license?

[<elm...@t-...>]

Going into the details you are right, indeed.
They have an easy to understand FAQ 
about all those relicensing issues there:

http://mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html


*** MPL and LGPL are incompatible! ***

Concerning phpXPath and COOL I see three alternative ways to act:

1.) Developing COOL without using phpXPath 
2.) Relicensing phpXPath to such an GPL/LGPL/MPL triple as mozilla uses
3.) "Stealing" phpXPath in a way MPL provides it

Personally I would propose point 2.
I should be no problem to extend the older versions
from MPL to a GPL/LGPL/MPL triple, I think.

For future versions you can decide for GPL or LGPL.
I think MPL is a difficult license and not very clear to understand.
LGPL is backward compatible with GPL, too.

If you are planning relicensing during the next days,
we can use phpXPath for COOL. 
Otherwise we will have decide for point 1 
to get forward with the development. 

I would feel uneasy about the third possibility, 
even if it would show to be a legal way. 
But it is only a way for lawers I think.

Hope you will come to a decision soon

Regards 

Elmar



Francis Fillion wrote:

> As read on the gnu.org site and the mozilla.org site, MPL is 
> incompatible with LGPL. MOzilla use a triple license sheme MPL/GPL/LGPL 
>    so you can use any of those license, so if you use code that is GPL, 
> you can use GPL license and on ...
> 
> 

Elmar Hinz wrote:

 ...

> >"At the moment, parts of the source are available under
> > either the Netscape Public License (NPL)
> > or the Mozilla Public License (MPL),
> > often in combination with either the GNU General Public License (GPL)
> > or the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), or both."
> > 
> > 

Re: Relicensing - was - meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Nigel S. <nig...@us...>]

Thanks all for the detailed discussion about licenses.

Php.XPath is published under MPL because that's what the original developer
Michael Mehl chose and we've never really thought to change it.  Up until
now noone has suggested we change it.  I will research it some more and
discuss with the other developers but think it is likely that we will change
the license.  LGPL sounds like the best to me...

Cheers,

Nigel

===========================
For the most recent version of Php.XPath, and an archive of this list visit:
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpxpath

Re: Relicensing - was - meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Nigel S. <nig...@us...>]

Ok a quick poll of the developers seemed to agree that we are all happy to
publish Php.XPath under a MPL/GPL/LGPL triple that will maximise the
usefulness of the class while maintaining it's open source nature.

The license change will go along with the next minor release of Php.XPath,
version 3.2, that will be out as soon as the outstanding XPath bugs have
been fixed, hopefully within a fortnight, but both Sam and I are clogged at
work at the moment.

Cheers,

Nigel

===========================
For the most recent version of Php.XPath, and an archive of this list visit:
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpxpath

Re: Relicensing - was - meaning of Php.XPath license?

[<elm...@t-...>]

Nigel Swinson wrote:
> Ok a quick poll of the developers seemed to agree that we are all happy to
> publish Php.XPath under a MPL/GPL/LGPL triple that will maximise the
> usefulness of the class while maintaining it's open source nature.
> 
> The license change will go along with the next minor release of Php.XPath,
> version 3.2, that will be out as soon as the outstanding XPath bugs have
> been fixed, hopefully within a fortnight, but both Sam and I are clogged at
> work at the moment.

The MPL/GPL/LGPL triple seems a solution 
  to me, to relicense existing versions 
from MPL to LGPL/GPL without breaking 
the rules of MPL.

Does anybody of the developers has an 
argument why to publish future versions 
under MPL at all? But yes. It is 
certainly the widest range.

I thank very much you for your decision. 
I think we can wait a fortnight to 
publish the next minor version of COOL. 
I try to run it with 3.2 then.

Regards

Elmar

Re: Relicensing - was - meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Nigel S. <nig...@us...>]

> The MPL/GPL/LGPL triple seems a solution
>   to me, to relicense existing versions
> from MPL to LGPL/GPL without breaking
> the rules of MPL.
>
> Does anybody of the developers has an
> argument why to publish future versions
> under MPL at all? But yes. It is
> certainly the widest range.

MPL is even less restrictive than LGPL from my reading... so the triple
seems to make the code even more accessible.  I also feel less worried about
adding GPL/LGPL to the MPL license rather than converting the MPL to a
GPL/LGPL.

> I thank very much you for your decision.
> I think we can wait a fortnight to
> publish the next minor version of COOL.
> I try to run it with 3.2 then.

"Greg's bugs" might delay the next version... but the next version will have
the new license when ever we get round to it...

:o)

Nigel

Configuration was Relicensing

[<elm...@t-...>]

For COOL we are still looking for a 
standard xml configuration format, wich 
knows nested structures like submenus. I 
asked on mozilla..org, but they didn't 
seem to know anything about such a 
format like a dtd or schema. Do you have 
some hints?

Elmar


Nigel Swinson wrote:
 >>The MPL/GPL/LGPL triple seems a solution
 >>  to me, to relicense existing versions
 >>from MPL to LGPL/GPL without breaking
 >>the rules of MPL.
 >>
 >>Does anybody of the developers has an
 >>argument why to publish future versions
 >>under MPL at all? But yes. It is
 >>certainly the widest range.
 >
 >
 > MPL is even less restrictive than 
LGPL from my reading... so the triple
 > seems to make the code even more 
accessible.  I also feel less worried about
 > adding GPL/LGPL to the MPL license 
rather than converting the MPL to a
 > GPL/LGPL.
 >
 >
 >>I thank very much you for your decision.
 >>I think we can wait a fortnight to
 >>publish the next minor version of COOL.
 >>I try to run it with 3.2 then.
 >
 >
 > "Greg's bugs" might delay the next 
version... but the next version will have
 > the new license when ever we get 
round to it...
 >
 > :o)
 >
 > Nigel
 >
 >
 >
 > 
-------------------------------------------------------
 > This sf.net email is sponsored 
by:ThinkGeek
 > Oh, it's good to be a geek.
 > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
 > 
_______________________________________________
 > Phpxpath-users mailing list
 > Php...@li...
 > 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users

Re: Configuration was Relicensing

[Nigel S. <nig...@us...>]

> For COOL we are still looking for a 
> standard xml configuration format, wich 
> knows nested structures like submenus. I 
> asked on mozilla..org, but they didn't 
> seem to know anything about such a 
> format like a dtd or schema. Do you have 
> some hints?

I would just make one up...

<Menu name="MenuName">
    <Item name="LinkName" target="TargetName" protocol="http"/>
    <Item name="LinkName" target="TargetName" protocol="http"/>
    <Item name="LinkName" target="TargetName" protocol="http"/>
    <Item name="LinkName" target="TargetName" protocol="http"/>
    <Menu name="SubMenuName">
        <!-- Sub menu -->
        <Item name="LinkName" target="TargetName" protocol="http"/>
     </Menu>
</Menu>

etc etc

I've never authored a DTD or a schema... never really needed one.

Nigel

Re: Configuration was Relicensing

[<elm...@t-...>]

> I would just make one up...
> 
> <Menu name="MenuName">
>     <Item name="LinkName" target="TargetName" protocol="http"/>
>     <Item name="LinkName" target="TargetName" protocol="http"/>


...

Making one for a special task is more 
easy. My idea is to find a general 
format, wich matches the needs of any 
possible application. Because having a 
real general format would make it 
possible to configure all with a general 
frontend.

Imagine you could configure all those 
different programms like sendmail, bind, 
apache, php etc. with the same tool, 
because they all use the same XML 
configuration format.

Elmar

Re: Configuration was Relicensing

[Peter R. <php...@pe...>]

On Tuesday 09 Jul 2002 09:19, Elmar Hinz wrote:
>
> Imagine you could configure all those
> different programms like sendmail, bind,
> apache, php etc. with the same tool,

isn't that what webmin does?

istm (as a generalisation :-) that the more general a format is, the 
less useful it is going to be.

Re: Configuration was Relicensing

[<elm...@t-...>]

 >>Imagine you could configure all those
 >>different programms like sendmail, bind,
 >>apache, php etc. with the same tool,
 >
 >
> isn't that what webmin does?
> 

On my machine all those programms still 
have different formats. ;-)

I will have a look what webmin is. Maybe 
it can give me some ideas.

Thanks

Elmar