phpxpath-users

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

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

> Dear Nigel,
>
> I have downloaded and am studying version 3.0 for use in my application.
> I looked at the Mozilla Public License but cannot make any common sense
> of it.
> Can you help me? The legalese is incomprehensible to me. Even if you
> think you understand something like that, you have no idea what a
> judge's interpretation might be anyway....
>
> What I would like to know is: if I use Php.XPath as part of a larger
> application that I am writing, am I free to distribute or sell my
> application with or without including Php.XPath?

I am equally uninspired by legal issues, to the point that I cant be
bothered researching this for you and certainly beyond the point where I
would think of taking you to court if you "get it wrong".  :o)

Perhaps someone else on the development team, or someone else on the mail
list can help out though?

My gut feeling is that yes you can sell Php.XPath, but you must distribute
the source with it, along with copyleft statement.  How you sell a php
product without distributing the source I'll never know, but the copyright
statement must stay.

Nigel

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

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Francis F. <fra...@vi...>]

################resume############
1)I'm not a lawyer, by reading this you can not in anyway sue me for any 
reason that caused you or other's any kind of prejudice

2)NO, LGPL is not compatible with MPL

3) Modification of Php.XPath can be kept private

4) We sould maybe re-licence Php.XPath

If you want to understand all of it, read on my bad english

################resume############


Well, I didn't read the license completly, well I did 1 or 2 year's ago, 
but if I look in my book: Open SOurces VOices from the Open SOurce 
Revolution. You can get see the book online at 
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html

and get the page that I talk  at
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html

just go down until you get the table comparing all license.

I can see that if Php.XPath is MPL, it can be mixed with closed source 
(non-free software) and a bad thing is that modification can be made and 
kept by who did it. So if I take Php.XPath I can make some modification 
and keep it for me, it can be keep private. The MPL was made by Netscape 
for the Mozilla project, so that Netscape can take the Mozilla browser 
made some modification to it, to leverage the browser and to 
redistribute it without giving the source back to Mozilla. ( Mozilla 
will be relicensed as MPL and GPL, with both of them )


By loking at the mozilla.org site and at the gnu.org site I found that:

The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
     This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; 
unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it 
incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and 
a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge 
you not to use the MPL for this reason.

     However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program 
(or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part 
of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other 
GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program 
has a GPL-compatible license.


LGPL is based on GPL, so it is not compatible as read on Mozilla.org:

After the NPL and MPL were created, the Free Software Foundation stated 
that the NPL and MPL were "incompatible" with the GPL. "Incompatibility" 
in this context means that (in the opinion of the FSF) developers who 
combined code licensed under the NPL (or MPL) with code licensed under 
the GPL and distributed the resulting work could not do such 
distribution without violating the terms of the GPL. Given that the LGPL 
contains similar language to the GPL, if the MPL were in fact 
incompatible in this way with the GPL, it would arguably be incompatible 
with the LGPL as well.


If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from it, 
it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done.

As of source of not, the only way to compile PHP is to have the Zend 
compiler, which is really costly, so if you don't compile it, they will 
get the source.

I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is one of an ordinary user ...


By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the software 
and keep the change they made, you should relicence the software to 
somethings else.

I hope it help.

Nigel Swinson wrote:
>>Dear Nigel,
>>
>>I have downloaded and am studying version 3.0 for use in my application.
>>I looked at the Mozilla Public License but cannot make any common sense
>>of it.
>>Can you help me? The legalese is incomprehensible to me. Even if you
>>think you understand something like that, you have no idea what a
>>judge's interpretation might be anyway....
>>
>>What I would like to know is: if I use Php.XPath as part of a larger
>>application that I am writing, am I free to distribute or sell my
>>application with or without including Php.XPath?
> 
> 
> I am equally uninspired by legal issues, to the point that I cant be
> bothered researching this for you and certainly beyond the point where I
> would think of taking you to court if you "get it wrong".  :o)
> 
> Perhaps someone else on the development team, or someone else on the mail
> list can help out though?
> 
> My gut feeling is that yes you can sell Php.XPath, but you must distribute
> the source with it, along with copyleft statement.  How you sell a php
> product without distributing the source I'll never know, but the copyright
> statement must stay.
> 
> Nigel
> 
> ===========================
> For the most recent version of Php.XPath, and an archive of this list visit:
> http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpxpath
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Phpxpath-users mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users
> 


-- 
Francis Fillion, BAA SI
Broadcasting live from his linux box.
And the maintainer of http://www.windplanet.com

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

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

my understanding is the same as yours, Francis, but I would add a 
couple of comments:

On Friday 28 Jun 2002 03:40, Francis Fillion wrote:
> By loking at the gnu.org site 

i.e. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy. This whole site provides a good 
summary of all the legal issues, reasonably comprehensible to 
non-lawyers. license-list.html compares the various licenses.

> If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from
> it, it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done.

There's nothing unethical in this, at least if it's intended as Free 
Software (if it's conventional copyright material, that's another 
matter). It's a common misunderstanding that Free Software means free 
as in beer, whereas it means free as in speech. The GPL was never 
intended to prevent people from making money from writing software. 
To quote the GNU site:
"Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge 
as much as they wish or can."

> By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the
> software and keep the change they made, you should relicence the
> software to somethings else.

I agree. I don't understand why phpxpath is MPL and not GPL.

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Francis F. <fra...@vi...>]

When I talked about money and ethics, what I means is yes people can 
make money from it, but if it was somebody who wasn't/didn't collaborate 
to the development of  Php.XPath, this person should find someway to get 
back some reward/money/or anything's else to the developper so that they 
don't get frustrated and that this get back to the person who make money 
with this.

As for relicensing, well I think that this is a long debate, the only 
license that I know that modification has to come back to the developper 
is GPL/LGPL.

The only problem if you take GPL, is that you already grant right, with 
the MPL, to people to mixe your software with non-free (software who are 
not open source, not as in free beer) software, so the only other's 
license who will do that is LGPL. If you do go with GPL, people who use 
your software in closed source, will have to fork (your older version is 
still licensed as  MPL) and continue the development they own way.

Hope it help, if you have any question you have 6 hours left to ask 
them, it's a long week-end here in Canada, so no computer for the next 3 
day's, well until thuesday.


Peter Robins wrote:
> my understanding is the same as yours, Francis, but I would add a 
> couple of comments:
> 
> On Friday 28 Jun 2002 03:40, Francis Fillion wrote:
> 
>>By loking at the gnu.org site 
> 
> 
> i.e. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy. This whole site provides a good 
> summary of all the legal issues, reasonably comprehensible to 
> non-lawyers. license-list.html compares the various licenses.
> 
> 
>>If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from
>>it, it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done.
> 
> 
> There's nothing unethical in this, at least if it's intended as Free 
> Software (if it's conventional copyright material, that's another 
> matter). It's a common misunderstanding that Free Software means free 
> as in beer, whereas it means free as in speech. The GPL was never 
> intended to prevent people from making money from writing software. 
> To quote the GNU site:
> "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge 
> as much as they wish or can."
> 
> 
>>By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the
>>software and keep the change they made, you should relicence the
>>software to somethings else.
> 
> 
> I agree. I don't understand why phpxpath is MPL and not GPL.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Caffeinated soap. No kidding.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Phpxpath-users mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users
> 


-- 
Francis Fillion, BAA SI
Broadcasting live from his linux box.
And the maintainer of http://www.windplanet.com

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

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

> As for relicensing, well I think that this is a long debate, the only
> license that I know that modification has to come back to the developper
> is GPL/LGPL.

http://mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html#why-grant-permission
The new Mozilla license scheme (i.e., the MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license) is
arguably consistent with the prior schemes: It too requires that people make
source code available for modifications to Mozilla code (this is required
whether licensees use the code under MPL, GPL, or LGPL terms), and it too
allows Mozilla code to be used in proprietary programs (this is allowed by
the MPL, and also allowed by the LGPL in certain cases).

Nigel

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Francis F. <fra...@vi...>]

Well I don't know if this is because of Mozilla 1.1 or because of the 
triple license, but in my book they said that modification can be kept 
private, but I find this on Mozilla.org 
(http://mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0-annotated-fs.html):

What that said is that you have to make the source code public to whom 
you give/sale executable too, but you don't need to give it back to 
Mozilla.org


It's in the MOzilla license

3.2. Availability of Source Code.
Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be 
made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License 
either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted 
Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an 
Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic 
Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) 
months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) 
months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has 
been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring 
that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic 
Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.

if you want an explnation here it is:
at 
http://mozilla.org/MPL/annotations-1.0.html#Public_Availability_of_Source_Code

``Availability of Source Code''
This provision is intended to ensure availability of code, while 
minimizing the burden on each Contributor. It is based on the principle 
of ``code follows the executable'' that is found in the GPL. It does not 
require that you return Modifications to mozilla.org or any other named 
organization. However, you may do so if you choose, and we hope that you 
wish to participate in the development community that mozilla.org is 
chartered to foster.



Nigel Swinson wrote:
>>As for relicensing, well I think that this is a long debate, the only
>>license that I know that modification has to come back to the developper
>>is GPL/LGPL.
> 
> 
> http://mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html#why-grant-permission
> The new Mozilla license scheme (i.e., the MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license) is
> arguably consistent with the prior schemes: It too requires that people make
> source code available for modifications to Mozilla code (this is required
> whether licensees use the code under MPL, GPL, or LGPL terms), and it too
> allows Mozilla code to be used in proprietary programs (this is allowed by
> the MPL, and also allowed by the LGPL in certain cases).
> 
> Nigel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Phpxpath-users mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users
> 


-- 
Francis Fillion, BAA SI
Broadcasting live from his linux box.
And the maintainer of http://www.windplanet.com

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

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

Hi all,

lets a read the thoughts of another non-lawyer with a bad english:

I am leading the COOL project on SF.
COOL is a library base for web applications.
The license of COOL itself is the Library General Public License(LGPL).
We would like to link to phpXPATH, the last stabel version.
A public test of my current development state is running under
http://cool.sourceforge.net/alpha
phpXpath is used to create and read XML language files.
You can download your mylanguage.xml result, too.

################################################
I try to bring GPL, LGPL and MPL to the point first.
################################################

1.) Linking to a GPL library means that your code must become also GPL. 
It is infectious.
2.) Linking to a LGPL library means that your code keeps private while 
LGPL keeps LGPL.
3.) Building on MPL means that all the changed Code can go to private.

################################################

The question for  COOL is now:

Can LGPL link to a MPL library?
I think MPL is the weakest of all.
Therefore it should be no problem from the position of MPL.
It could be a problem for LGPL.

As a am not a layer I can only look,
what other people do in this situation.
On http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ I find the following sentences.

"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."

Therefore I think that
LGPL is compatible with MPL
or mozilla.org is violating LGPL.

For COOL project it certainly would be best,
to have phpXPath also under LGPL.

If MPL and LGPL would  really be incompatible,
as Francis Fillion wrote,
we certainly can't use phpXPath
and have to look for another solution.

Regards

Elmar






Francis Fillion wrote:

> ################resume############
> 1)I'm not a lawyer, by reading this you can not in anyway sue me for 
> any reason that caused you or other's any kind of prejudice
>
> 2)NO, LGPL is not compatible with MPL
>
> 3) Modification of Php.XPath can be kept private
>
> 4) We sould maybe re-licence Php.XPath
>
> If you want to understand all of it, read on my bad english
>
> ################resume############
>
>
> Well, I didn't read the license completly, well I did 1 or 2 year's 
> ago, but if I look in my book: Open SOurces VOices from the Open 
> SOurce Revolution. You can get see the book online at 
> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html
>
> and get the page that I talk  at
> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
>
> just go down until you get the table comparing all license.
>
> I can see that if Php.XPath is MPL, it can be mixed with closed source 
> (non-free software) and a bad thing is that modification can be made 
> and kept by who did it. So if I take Php.XPath I can make some 
> modification and keep it for me, it can be keep private. The MPL was 
> made by Netscape for the Mozilla project, so that Netscape can take 
> the Mozilla browser made some modification to it, to leverage the 
> browser and to redistribute it without giving the source back to 
> Mozilla. ( Mozilla will be relicensed as MPL and GPL, with both of them )
>
>
> By loking at the mozilla.org site and at the gnu.org site I found that:
>
> The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
>     This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; 
> unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it 
> incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL 
> and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We 
> urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.
>
>     However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a 
> program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. 
> If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any 
> other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the 
> program has a GPL-compatible license.
>
>
> LGPL is based on GPL, so it is not compatible as read on Mozilla.org:
>
> After the NPL and MPL were created, the Free Software Foundation 
> stated that the NPL and MPL were "incompatible" with the GPL. 
> "Incompatibility" in this context means that (in the opinion of the 
> FSF) developers who combined code licensed under the NPL (or MPL) with 
> code licensed under the GPL and distributed the resulting work could 
> not do such distribution without violating the terms of the GPL. Given 
> that the LGPL contains similar language to the GPL, if the MPL were in 
> fact incompatible in this way with the GPL, it would arguably be 
> incompatible with the LGPL as well.
>
>
> If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from it, 
> it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done.
>
> As of source of not, the only way to compile PHP is to have the Zend 
> compiler, which is really costly, so if you don't compile it, they 
> will get the source.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is one of an ordinary user ...
>
>
> By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the software 
> and keep the change they made, you should relicence the software to 
> somethings else.
>
> I hope it help.
>
> Nigel Swinson wrote:
>
>>> Dear Nigel,
>>>
>>> I have downloaded and am studying version 3.0 for use in my 
>>> application.
>>> I looked at the Mozilla Public License but cannot make any common sense
>>> of it.
>>> Can you help me? The legalese is incomprehensible to me. Even if you
>>> think you understand something like that, you have no idea what a
>>> judge's interpretation might be anyway....
>>>
>>> What I would like to know is: if I use Php.XPath as part of a larger
>>> application that I am writing, am I free to distribute or sell my
>>> application with or without including Php.XPath?
>>
>>
>>
>> I am equally uninspired by legal issues, to the point that I cant be
>> bothered researching this for you and certainly beyond the point where I
>> would think of taking you to court if you "get it wrong".  :o)
>>
>> Perhaps someone else on the development team, or someone else on the 
>> mail
>> list can help out though?
>>
>> My gut feeling is that yes you can sell Php.XPath, but you must 
>> distribute
>> the source with it, along with copyleft statement.  How you sell a php
>> product without distributing the source I'll never know, but the 
>> copyright
>> statement must stay.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> ===========================
>> For the most recent version of Php.XPath, and an archive of this list 
>> visit:
>> http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpxpath
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>> Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy.
>> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>> _______________________________________________
>> Phpxpath-users mailing list
>> Php...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users
>>
>
>

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Francis F. <fra...@vi...>]

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:
> Hi all,
> 
> lets a read the thoughts of another non-lawyer with a bad english:
> 
> I am leading the COOL project on SF.
> COOL is a library base for web applications.
> The license of COOL itself is the Library General Public License(LGPL).
> We would like to link to phpXPATH, the last stabel version.
> A public test of my current development state is running under
> http://cool.sourceforge.net/alpha
> phpXpath is used to create and read XML language files.
> You can download your mylanguage.xml result, too.
> 
> ################################################
> I try to bring GPL, LGPL and MPL to the point first.
> ################################################
> 
> 1.) Linking to a GPL library means that your code must become also GPL. 
> It is infectious.
> 2.) Linking to a LGPL library means that your code keeps private while 
> LGPL keeps LGPL.
> 3.) Building on MPL means that all the changed Code can go to private.
> 
> ################################################
> 
> The question for  COOL is now:
> 
> Can LGPL link to a MPL library?
> I think MPL is the weakest of all.
> Therefore it should be no problem from the position of MPL.
> It could be a problem for LGPL.
> 
> As a am not a layer I can only look,
> what other people do in this situation.
> On http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ I find the following sentences.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Therefore I think that
> LGPL is compatible with MPL
> or mozilla.org is violating LGPL.
> 
> For COOL project it certainly would be best,
> to have phpXPath also under LGPL.
> 
> If MPL and LGPL would  really be incompatible,
> as Francis Fillion wrote,
> we certainly can't use phpXPath
> and have to look for another solution.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Elmar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Fillion wrote:
> 
>> ################resume############
>> 1)I'm not a lawyer, by reading this you can not in anyway sue me for 
>> any reason that caused you or other's any kind of prejudice
>>
>> 2)NO, LGPL is not compatible with MPL
>>
>> 3) Modification of Php.XPath can be kept private
>>
>> 4) We sould maybe re-licence Php.XPath
>>
>> If you want to understand all of it, read on my bad english
>>
>> ################resume############
>>
>>
>> Well, I didn't read the license completly, well I did 1 or 2 year's 
>> ago, but if I look in my book: Open SOurces VOices from the Open 
>> SOurce Revolution. You can get see the book online at 
>> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html
>>
>> and get the page that I talk  at
>> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
>>
>> just go down until you get the table comparing all license.
>>
>> I can see that if Php.XPath is MPL, it can be mixed with closed source 
>> (non-free software) and a bad thing is that modification can be made 
>> and kept by who did it. So if I take Php.XPath I can make some 
>> modification and keep it for me, it can be keep private. The MPL was 
>> made by Netscape for the Mozilla project, so that Netscape can take 
>> the Mozilla browser made some modification to it, to leverage the 
>> browser and to redistribute it without giving the source back to 
>> Mozilla. ( Mozilla will be relicensed as MPL and GPL, with both of them )
>>
>>
>> By loking at the mozilla.org site and at the gnu.org site I found that:
>>
>> The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
>>     This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; 
>> unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it 
>> incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL 
>> and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We 
>> urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.
>>
>>     However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a 
>> program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. 
>> If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any 
>> other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the 
>> program has a GPL-compatible license.
>>
>>
>> LGPL is based on GPL, so it is not compatible as read on Mozilla.org:
>>
>> After the NPL and MPL were created, the Free Software Foundation 
>> stated that the NPL and MPL were "incompatible" with the GPL. 
>> "Incompatibility" in this context means that (in the opinion of the 
>> FSF) developers who combined code licensed under the NPL (or MPL) with 
>> code licensed under the GPL and distributed the resulting work could 
>> not do such distribution without violating the terms of the GPL. Given 
>> that the LGPL contains similar language to the GPL, if the MPL were in 
>> fact incompatible in this way with the GPL, it would arguably be 
>> incompatible with the LGPL as well.
>>
>>
>> If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from it, 
>> it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done.
>>
>> As of source of not, the only way to compile PHP is to have the Zend 
>> compiler, which is really costly, so if you don't compile it, they 
>> will get the source.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is one of an ordinary user ...
>>
>>
>> By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the software 
>> and keep the change they made, you should relicence the software to 
>> somethings else.
>>
>> I hope it help.
>>
>> Nigel Swinson wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear Nigel,
>>>>
>>>> I have downloaded and am studying version 3.0 for use in my 
>>>> application.
>>>> I looked at the Mozilla Public License but cannot make any common sense
>>>> of it.
>>>> Can you help me? The legalese is incomprehensible to me. Even if you
>>>> think you understand something like that, you have no idea what a
>>>> judge's interpretation might be anyway....
>>>>
>>>> What I would like to know is: if I use Php.XPath as part of a larger
>>>> application that I am writing, am I free to distribute or sell my
>>>> application with or without including Php.XPath?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am equally uninspired by legal issues, to the point that I cant be
>>> bothered researching this for you and certainly beyond the point where I
>>> would think of taking you to court if you "get it wrong".  :o)
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone else on the development team, or someone else on the 
>>> mail
>>> list can help out though?
>>>
>>> My gut feeling is that yes you can sell Php.XPath, but you must 
>>> distribute
>>> the source with it, along with copyleft statement.  How you sell a php
>>> product without distributing the source I'll never know, but the 
>>> copyright
>>> statement must stay.
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>> ===========================
>>> For the most recent version of Php.XPath, and an archive of this list 
>>> visit:
>>> http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpxpath
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>>> Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy.
>>> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Phpxpath-users mailing list
>>> Php...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Caffeinated soap. No kidding.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Phpxpath-users mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users
> 


-- 
Francis Fillion, BAA SI
Broadcasting live from his linux box.
And the maintainer of http://www.windplanet.com

Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

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

>
> ################################################
> I try to bring GPL, LGPL and MPL to the point first.
> ################################################
>
> 1.) Linking to a GPL library means that your code must become also 
> GPL. It is infectious.
> 2.) Linking to a LGPL library means that your code keeps private while 
> LGPL keeps LGPL.
> 3.) Building on MPL means that all the changed Code can go to private.


That brings me to an idea.
Couldn't we change a line in phpXPath and release it completely under 
LGPL as integrated part of COOL?

>
> ################################################
>
>