|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 06/08/06 10:47
yawnmoth wrote:
> The PHP license states the following:
>
> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
> may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
> from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
> conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
> it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
>
> As the author of something released under the PHP license, can I, as I
> see fit, just grant permission to an application using PHP in its name?
> Alternatively, could I maybe have two different versions of the
> package in question - one licensed under the PHP license and one
> licensed under the GPL license?
>
> Also, say I were wanting to make a certain package a part of PEAR and I
> wanted it to be released under the GPL license and not the PHP license.
> How would I need to update the header comment block to reflect this?
> The sample header block given reads like this:
>
> * LICENSE: This source file is subject to version 3.0 of the PHP
> license
> * that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI:
> * http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt. If you did not receive a copy of
> * the PHP License and are unable to obtain it through the web, please
> * send a note to license@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately.
>
> Further, one of the required lines in the PEAR header is as follows:
>
> * @author Original Author <author@example.com>
>
> Do email addresses have to be included?
>
> Also, say I have a PEAR account. How do I start submitting new
> packages?
>
> Regarding the naming conventions of functions... the PEAR manual says
> that they ought to use the "studly caps" convention. What about for
> something like base256_lshift or bytes2int, though? For those function
> names, using the "studly caps" convention seems like it'd almost hinder
> readability...
>
> Regarding constants... the sample file suggests that comments ought to
> be done like this:
>
> // {{{ constants
>
> /**
> * Methods return this if they succeed
> */
> define('NET_SAMPLE_OK', 1);
>
> What if, however, there are multiple constants? Does each one need to
> be preceeded by a comment or can they sorta be grouped together?
> Further, what if the constants are chiefly intended to be used by
> "private" functions (as indicated by their being preceeded with a _)?
> Are comments still needed? Or should "private" functions not even use
> constants? Personally, I think they ought to as using constants can
> help one follow through the code. What's the PEAR Groups stance on
> this?
>
Maybe you need to ask your license questions of the people who license PHP -
that is, the folks at php.net. No one here will be able to give you a more
authoritative answer.
And maybe ask your pear questions would get better answers from pear.php.net, I
would think.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|