Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [PEAR-QA] PHP License
- To: Ian Eure <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Joe Stump <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Alan Knowles <email@example.com>, Charles Fry <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [PEAR-QA] PHP License
- From: Arnaud Limbourg <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:04:01 +0200
- Message-id: <430BFFC1.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20050823223055.GH9056@true> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Can you please make this another thread, this is outside the scope of
the original message :)
Ian Eure wrote:
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 09:34 pm, Justin Patrin wrote:
On 8/23/05, Ian Eure <email@example.com> wrote:
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote:
I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say,
the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code a lot better
IMO). To have the license require distribution of PHP is a little
odd. What I'm a tad more confused about is why anyone would maintain
their packages through apt instead of pear.
pear upgrade Package_Name
- or -
Translates about as well as "apt-get install php4-pear-package-name"
I would think.