Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:40:02 +0200, Martin Larsen
<martin+spamfree+larsen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And now to my question: Is there a way to contact the PHP Group directly?

According to license.txt in the PHP distribution:

"The PHP Group can be contacted via Email at group@xxxxxxxx"

I wonder if you might have more luck with Zend, the company behind the core of
PHP (the Zend engine). Since this includes the compiler + bytecode interpreter
anyway, they should be well-placed to answer.

http://www.zend.com/company/contact_us

Have you contacted the FSF as well? Since they produced the GPL license, they
may be able to clarify its terms.

I have an idea that if we could get a "official" statement of the
linking or non-linking involved, they might be more prone to listening.

And again, I certainly don't want the PHP Group or any other to comment
on the good or bad of plugins being GPL because that is entirely
irrelevant. I just sincerely believe that their technical resoning is
entirely wrong.

If it were "libraries" then I'd interpret it as "dynamic linking" in the
context of the GPL. This seems to be backed up with the already-quoted:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
"Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with
many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes.
These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked
together.

A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes
in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way,
regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the
combined Perl or Java program will run on."


Introducing the term "plugin" seems to point to the following, though:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to
each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program,
which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the
plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a
GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be
followed when those plug-ins are distributed."


There does seem to be a valid distinction between a library, which implements
a particular function and makes that available to /any/ other application that
loads it, versus a plug-in that explicitly extends one application - which
makes the argument of "derivative work" plausible.

It's not entirely clear, so it's an interesting question.

--
Andy Hassall :: andy@xxxxxxxxxxx :: http://www.andyh.co.uk
http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space :: disk and FTP usage analysis tool
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Am *I* allowed to make a suggestion for PG
    ... Not that I'm putting Perl down. ... L> were a PHP group and I was an invested user, ... L> so it doesn't just die out and leave me an 'expert' of a dead ... clue about perl code and it uses is very strong. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: Perl-1.0.0
    ... http://pecl.php.net/package/perl, enabling one to call perl libraries) ... to a pre-existing Solaris system. ... Copyright 1997-2006 The PHP Group ... Zend Engine v2.1.0, ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: perl and php
    ... You'll probably get exactly the opposite answer if you ask in a PHP group. ... looks like perl is gooder for me. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)