On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
> > achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
> > problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is
> > under the GPL .
>
> That would create a licence conflict if you were redistributing a
> derivative work consisting of the talkfilters lib linked to the PHP
> interpreter -- but you're not.
Right .. I'm not planning to ditribute any binaries..
> > The problem is that , with my understanding, because my code gets
> > incorporated directly into PHP that means that PHP automatically becomes
> > GPL'd.
>
> Your understanding is incorrect. Just _think_, please: How _could_ it
Easy .. I acknowledged it because it didn't make sense.
> > So I tried to get the talkfilters developer to switch to the LGPL
>
> Why? Are you seeking to...
>
> 1) Link a GPL-covered work (talkfilters) to a PHP-licensed work
> (the PHP interpreter v. 4 or later), and
>
> 2) Redistribute the resulting derivative work?
>
> Based on your description, that does NOT appear to be the case.
> Therefore, you would seem to be trying to solve a non-existent problem.
It appears that way .. However, something else comes to mind.
Some PHP applications are closed source. My code would facilitade a close
source PHP script to _use_ talkfilters . But that's not a violated either,
even if I keep it closed?
Ok, so the GPL doesn't apply unless I distribute something. Then
it only applies if I create a derivative work, being source or binary?
Daniel Walker
