Re: Copyright issues GPL-PHP license
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
This isn't about PHP, it isn't about copyright, it is simply a bad
package that was badly thought out and badly implemented with the wrong
design in mind. The idea of a web server written in PHP is ludicrous.
In my very personal opinion I would say that a _framework_ that allows
a PHP application have the basic functionality of a web server is
useful when the application might need a remote interface. Remember
that PHP isn't only for the web anymore, there are good programs
developed making use of PHP-GTK, PHP-GTK2, and I guess there will also
be for PHP-Qt.
But I agree to the fact of creating a full web server in PHP isn't the
smartest and better way of creating a web server. Even tough there's
the possibility to compile the PHP scripts and create a binary with
the Roadsend PHP compiler, I don't expect it to introduce many
important and useful features that other web servers don't have (but
I'm always open to the fact that every day new things appear).
On 06/05/07, Alex Queiroz <email@example.com> wrote:
But as others said, it seems that PHP packages are particularly
prone to bugs. Now, THAT'S a good criterion.
Some PHP scripts are bogus and bad coded, but it is usually the PHP
compiler the one that is bogus, causing all the PHP scripts that
depend on certain PHP built-in functions to be affected some how.
As Thijs said, there's no licence problem because of nanoweb being
GPL'ed since nanoweb isn't linked to the PHP compiler in any way.
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.