question about php license and pear

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
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  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
* that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI:
* .  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 so we can mail you a copy immediately.

Further, one of the required lines in the PEAR header is as follows:

Do email addresses have to be included?

Also, say I have a PEAR account.  How do I start submitting new

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

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

Re: question about php license and pear

yawnmoth wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe you need to ask your license questions of the people who license PHP -  
that is, the folks at  No one here will be able to give you a more  
authoritative answer.

And maybe ask your pear questions would get better answers from, I  
would think.

Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

Re: question about php license and pear

yawnmoth wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As the holder of the copyright, I don't see why not.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you want it to be a part of PEAR, then it can't be licensed under
the GPL, nor can it make use of code under GPL. The LGPL is acceptable
I believe.

Site Timeline