Hi,
php-channel-* packages only provides 1 repository configuration file which is available from web, ex:
http://pear.phpqatools.org/channel.xml
For now License is often taken from the packages provided.
Ex php-channel-phpunit is "BSD" because all packages provided in the phpunit channel are BSD.
Some are "Public Domain" Ex : php-channel-horde, because provided packages are released under various licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL, ...).
Shouldn't all the php-channel-* set as "Public Domain" ? In this case, I will add a small note in the PHP Guildelines.
Thanks, Remi.
On 05/18/2012 01:30 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
Hi,
php-channel-* packages only provides 1 repository configuration file which is available from web, ex:
http://pear.phpqatools.org/channel.xml
For now License is often taken from the packages provided.
Ex php-channel-phpunit is "BSD" because all packages provided in the phpunit channel are BSD.
Some are "Public Domain" Ex : php-channel-horde, because provided packages are released under various licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL, ...).
Shouldn't all the php-channel-* set as "Public Domain" ? In this case, I will add a small note in the PHP Guildelines.
I'm not sure I understand. Are these .xml files marked as being in the Public Domain?
~tom
== Fedora Project
Le 18/05/2012 20:16, Tom Callaway a écrit :
I'm not sure I understand. Are these .xml files marked as being in the Public Domain?
No, and that's the problem. There is no explicit License on this file.
I think of "public" because this is not code, just a small configuration file, mainly the name and URL of a repository.
This file is generated by the pear server (often pirum[1])
Content is closed to one in a yum .repo file
Remi.
On 05/19/2012 02:11 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 18/05/2012 20:16, Tom Callaway a écrit :
I'm not sure I understand. Are these .xml files marked as being in the Public Domain?
No, and that's the problem. There is no explicit License on this file.
I think of "public" because this is not code, just a small configuration file, mainly the name and URL of a repository.
This file is generated by the pear server (often pirum[1])
Content is closed to one in a yum .repo file
I would not consider such a generated file that only contains a name and location of a repository to be copyrightable in the United States. It is my opinion, based on Feist v. Rural, that there is no real creative expression here (especially since these files are generated).
So, you're fine to include these files and treat them as if they were in the Public Domain in Fedora.
~tom
P.S. I'm not a lawyer. This shouldn't be considered legal advice.
== Fedora Project
-
Remi Collet -
Tom Callaway