Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ian Jackson]

Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl 
extensions"):
> Thanks for the reply.

Sorry about the delay replying.  This one is more complicated than
most.

> I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that
> originally not answered or just lost somewhere when forwarding?

Nothing was lost while forwarding.  I think the email does contain an
answer to Q4:

> > From: [redacted by iwj] <[redacted]@softwarefreedom.org>
...
> > >> Q4. Does including this statement pose any ethical, legal or practical
> > >>risk in the case where the software is _not_ in fact written or
> > >>provided by the PHP Development Team ?
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> Q5. Does the fact that the PHP licence conditions about the use of the
> > >>PHP name are contained in the actual copyright licence, rather than
> > >>in a separate trademark licence, significantly increase the risks
> > >>we would face if we had a disagreement with upstream about our
> > >>modifications (or our failure to seek approval) ?
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > No they don't increase your risks as they are attempting to enforce a
> > trademark rights (that they may or may not have) through a copyright
> > license, the chances of enforceability of such terms are weak.

This seems to me to be an answer to both Q4 and Q5.  Note that the
first "they" is a plural.


I suggest that the next steps are:

1. Some relevant package maintainers should post a blog posting about
   this issue, which should appear on planet.d.o and other appropriate
   places.  A copy should probably go to -legal and maybe -project.

   The blog posting should c the wording from the legal advice,
   point to this advice posting, and say that the maintainers are
   going to follow it.

2. The relevant package maintainers should resubmit the packaqes to
   NEW with the disclaimer text from the legal advice copied into the
   copyright file.

3. ftpmaster should (if they see fit) post a blog post or mailing list
   article of their own.

4. The packages should be accepted.

5. And any bugs about this licence issue should be closed with
   references to the public statements I mention above.

Ian.

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

2016. febr. 22. 20:12 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
> I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that
originally not answered or just lost somewhere when forwarding?
> My understanding on the first look is that the PHP license is flawed
(tries to limit the usage of php in naming but that is a futile attempt
without registering a  trademark) but the debian project shouldn't get into
any legal trouble from distributing software licensed via the php license
and even less likely when distributing software coming from the sources
listed on http://www.php.net/software/
>
> Is there anything else I'm missing which would make debian distributing
pear/pecl.php.net packages problematic based on this legal advice?

Bump. (Sorry for the top posting in my previous mail)

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Pamela Chestek]

On 2/22/2016 2:12 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> My understanding on the first look is that the PHP license is flawed
> (tries to limit the usage of php in naming but that is a futile
> attempt without registering a  trademark) 
Your premise that registration is required before trademark rights
accrue is completely untrue in the United States.

The PHP license statement

"Products derived from this software may not be called 'PHP', nor may
'PHP' appear in their name, without prior written permission from
gr...@php.net.  You may indicate that your software works in conjunction
with PHP by saying 'Foo for PHP' instead of calling it 'PHP Foo' or
'phpfoo'"

is a statement of what would be commonly understood amongst software
trademark lawyers as describing situations where there would be
trademark infringement, as can be evidenced by the fact that many FOSS
trademark guidelines say the same thing. So this statement could be read
as stating nothing more than you may not use a trademark unlawfully.

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for the reply.
I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that
originally not answered or just lost somewhere when forwarding?
My understanding on the first look is that the PHP license is flawed (tries
to limit the usage of php in naming but that is a futile attempt without
registering a  trademark) but the debian project shouldn't get into any
legal trouble from distributing software licensed via the php license and
even less likely when distributing software coming from the sources listed
on http://www.php.net/software/

Is there anything else I'm missing which would make debian distributing
pear/pecl.php.net packages problematic based on this legal advice?
2016. febr. 22. 18:40 ezt írta ("Ian Jackson" <
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>):

> Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
> pear/pecl extensions"):
> > I was just wondering if you were contacted or that you still plan to
> > publish the legal advice received back then?
>
> Thanks for the reminder.  I knew I wouldn't need to make a note in my
> diary :-).
>
> Here you go.  The mail below is c from the "INBOX Presentation"
> buffer in my MUA (VM).  I have left in the bottom-quote of Lucas
> (then-DPL)'s mail which includes, in turn, the questions I drafted.  I
> have redacted contact information which would identify the specific
> SFLC laywer, as I don't have the lawyer's consent to share their
> personal identity.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> From: [redacted by iwj] <[redacted]@softwarefreedom.org>
> To: Neil McGovern <[redacted]@halon.org.uk>, Neil 
> CC: Ian Jackson ,
>  Debian FTP Masters 
> Subject: Re: PHP license questions
> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:38:58 -0400
>
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> I have studied your questions with the context provided carefully and
> these are my observations and advice.
>
>
>  The PHP license 3.0 is a badly drafted copyright license that attempts
> to go beyond the rights afforded by copyright law. It does attempt to
> control the use of the term "PHP", which as Ian correctly points out in
> his summary, is not trademarked. Despite these requirements, it is a
> non-copyleft free software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL
> because it includes strong restrictions on the use of “PHP” in the name
> of derived products. I would generally recommend to refrain using it for
> any other software than PHP or PHP add-ons.
>
> >>
> >> We have the following questions:
> >>
> >> Q1. What is the best approach for Debian and its downstreams to take
> >> to comply with this licence ?  Should we always include the
> >> statement as requested ?
> I think the best approach for Debian is to issue a statement to the
> following effect:
>
> Debian packages include PHP and PHP add-ons but we don't attempt to nor
> can we resolve the impossible quandry that the language of the  PHP 3.01
> license creates. It is a free software license and we modify the
> software and  correctly designate the source of its origin by calling it
> PHP  or X for PHP. The license requires us to make a statement,
>
>   "This product includes PHP software, freely available from
> ", the veracity of which cannot be
> verified by us, nor can we be held responsible for the maintenance of
> the link.
>
> The license also makes warranty disclaimers that may be inaccurate in
> certain circumstances but all these inconsistencies owe to its drafting
> design.
>
>
>
> Such a statement or a blog post will clarify your approach and if PHP
> community has no objection, it will create an estoppel, if ever, in
> future there is a  dispute.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Q2. If the answer to Q1 is to always include the statement, does
> >>including this statement pose any ethical, legal or practical risk
> >>to anyone in the Free Software community ?  Is it fair to say that
> >>the statement is or can be materially false or misleading ?
>
> Yes but a statement from you about your best efforts to resolve this
> impossible issue will ensure that you have sufficient defense for any
> legal, ethical or practical risk.
> >>
> >> Q3. Do the answers to these questions depend on whether the addon is
> >>currently, or was ever, distributed via
> >>http://www.php.net/software/ ?
> >>
>
> If the add-ons were available from the link then it is no longer an
> inaccurate statement and if they weren't, a statement as suggested above
> should cover any risk that you may have.
> >> II. Inaccuracy of the disclaimer text:
> >>
> >> The warranty disclaimer text (in capitals after para 6 of the licence)
> >> says that `THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM' etc.
> >> The licence itself (para 1) requires this text to be included.
> >>
> >> When the PHP licence is used for software which is not provided by the
> >> PHP development team, the statement appears to be inaccurate.
>
> Same as above.
>

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ian Jackson]

Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl 
extensions"):
> I was just wondering if you were contacted or that you still plan to
> publish the legal advice received back then?

Thanks for the reminder.  I knew I wouldn't need to make a note in my
diary :-).

Here you go.  The mail below is c from the "INBOX Presentation"
buffer in my MUA (VM).  I have left in the bottom-quote of Lucas
(then-DPL)'s mail which includes, in turn, the questions I drafted.  I
have redacted contact information which would identify the specific
SFLC laywer, as I don't have the lawyer's consent to share their
personal identity.

Ian.


From: [redacted by iwj] <[redacted]@softwarefreedom.org>
To: Neil McGovern <[redacted]@halon.org.uk>, Neil 
CC: Ian Jackson , 
 Debian FTP Masters 
Subject: Re: PHP license questions
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:38:58 -0400


Hi Neil,

I have studied your questions with the context provided carefully and
these are my observations and advice.


 The PHP license 3.0 is a badly drafted copyright license that attempts
to go beyond the rights afforded by copyright law. It does attempt to
control the use of the term "PHP", which as Ian correctly points out in
his summary, is not trademarked. Despite these requirements, it is a
non-copyleft free software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL
because it includes strong restrictions on the use of “PHP” in the name
of derived products. I would generally recommend to refrain using it for
any other software than PHP or PHP add-ons.

>> 
>> We have the following questions:
>> 
>> Q1. What is the best approach for Debian and its downstreams to take
>> to comply with this licence ?  Should we always include the
>> statement as requested ?
I think the best approach for Debian is to issue a statement to the
following effect:

Debian packages include PHP and PHP add-ons but we don't attempt to nor
can we resolve the impossible quandry that the language of the  PHP 3.01
license creates. It is a free software license and we modify the
software and  correctly designate the source of its origin by calling it
PHP  or X for PHP. The license requires us to make a statement,

  "This product includes PHP software, freely available from
", the veracity of which cannot be
verified by us, nor can we be held responsible for the maintenance of
the link.

The license also makes warranty disclaimers that may be inaccurate in
certain circumstances but all these inconsistencies owe to its drafting
design.



Such a statement or a blog post will clarify your approach and if PHP
community has no objection, it will create an estoppel, if ever, in
future there is a  dispute.



>> 
>> Q2. If the answer to Q1 is to always include the statement, does
>>including this statement pose any ethical, legal or practical risk
>>to anyone in the Free Software community ?  Is it fair to say that
>>the statement is or can be materially false or misleading ?

Yes but a statement from you about your best efforts to resolve this
impossible issue will ensure that you have sufficient defense for any
legal, ethical or practical risk.
>> 
>> Q3. Do the answers to these questions depend on whether the addon is
>>currently, or was ever, distributed via
>>http://www.php.net/software/ ?
>> 

If the add-ons were available from the link then it is no longer an
inaccurate statement and if they weren't, a statement as suggested above
should cover any risk that you may have.
>> II. Inaccuracy of the disclaimer text:
>> 
>> The warranty disclaimer text (in capitals after para 6 of the licence)
>> says that `THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM' etc.
>> The licence itself (para 1) requires this text to be included.
>> 
>> When the PHP licence is used for software which is not provided by the
>> PHP development team, the statement appears to be inaccurate.

Same as above.

>> 
>> Q4. Does including this statement pose any ethical, legal or practical
>>risk in the case where the software is _not_ in fact written or
>>provided by the PHP Development Team ?



>> 
>> Q5. Does the fact that the PHP licence conditions about the use of the
>>PHP name are contained in the actual copyright licence, rather than
>>in a separate trademark licence, significantly increase the risks
>>we would face if we had a disagreement with upstream about our
>>modifications (or our failure to seek approval) ?
>> 
>> 



No they don't increase your risks as they are attempting to enforce a
trademark rights (that they may or may not have) through a copyright
license, the chances of enforceability of such terms are weak.

On 02/12/2015 09:58 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Dear [first name],
> 
> There has been some discussion in Debian about the status of the PHP
> license.  Ian Jackson (Cced) kindly wrote a summary and some 

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ian Jackson <
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
> pear/pecl extensions"):
> > Thanks, I will try to not give up.
>
> I think this continued delay is getting rather silly.  I have heard
> nothing other than these periodic pings.  Can someone explain to me
> what the reason is ?  Is it just that no-one feels comfortable taking
> responsibility ?
>
> Personally I think the right thing to do would be to:
>  1. publish the legal advice we have received here on this list
>  2. act on it
>
> Note that while in the general case it can be very unwise to publish
> legal advice, in this situation publishing it is (according to my
> reading of the advice) only to our advantage.
>
> Even though I drafted the questions that were put to our lawyer, I
> don't feel that I am entitled to simply publish this advice off my own
> bat.  However, I am going to set a deadline:
>
>
> I intend to publish the advice we received[1] one month from today.
>
> I will refrain from doing this if I am asked, or advised, not to do
> so, by any of the following:
>  - ftpmaster
>  - DPL
>  - SFLC
> I will also of course refrain if I come to the conclusion for any
> other reason that publishing it seems to be a bad idea.
>
> I will redact the name and email address of the laywer at SFLC unless
> they indicate to me that they are happy to be named.
>
> Please would ftpmaster or DPL let me know by 20th February if they
> think I should not publish the advice here.
>
> Ian.
>

Hi Ian,

I was just wondering if you were contacted or that you still plan to
publish the legal advice received back then?
-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

2016. jan. 14. 5:00 ezt írta ("Charles Plessy" ):
>
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>
> >> On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from
SFLC.
> >> IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
>
>  On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern 
wrote:
> >
> > AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?
>
> >>> 2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
> 
>  any update on this?
>
> >> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ferenc Kovacs 
wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bump
>
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ferenc Kovacs 
wrote:
> >
> >> Happy Holidays!
> >>
> >> (bump)
>
> Le Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:31:07PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
> >
> > any progress on this?
> > I starting to feel lonely here.
>
> Hi Ferenc,
>
> happy new year !
>
> ...  you are not alone :)  don't give up !  Sometimes things are not
quick in Debian ...

Hi,

Thanks, I will try to not give up.

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ian Jackson]

Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl 
extensions"):
> Thanks, I will try to not give up.

I think this continued delay is getting rather silly.  I have heard
nothing other than these periodic pings.  Can someone explain to me
what the reason is ?  Is it just that no-one feels comfortable taking
responsibility ?

Personally I think the right thing to do would be to:
 1. publish the legal advice we have received here on this list
 2. act on it

Note that while in the general case it can be very unwise to publish
legal advice, in this situation publishing it is (according to my
reading of the advice) only to our advantage.

Even though I drafted the questions that were put to our lawyer, I
don't feel that I am entitled to simply publish this advice off my own
bat.  However, I am going to set a deadline:


I intend to publish the advice we received[1] one month from today.

I will refrain from doing this if I am asked, or advised, not to do
so, by any of the following:
 - ftpmaster
 - DPL
 - SFLC
I will also of course refrain if I come to the conclusion for any
other reason that publishing it seems to be a bad idea.

I will redact the name and email address of the laywer at SFLC unless
they indicate to me that they are happy to be named.

Please would ftpmaster or DPL let me know by 20th February if they
think I should not publish the advice here.

Ian.

[1] Specifically, this email:
  From: [ someone at SFLC ]
  To: Neil McGovern , Neil 
  CC: Ian Jackson , 
  Debian FTP Masters 
  Subject: Re: PHP license questions
  Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:38:58 -0400
  Message-ID: <558b1562.1050...@softwarefreedom.org>

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Charles Plessy]

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
>> IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?

 On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern  wrote:
>
> AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?

>>> 2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):

 any update on this?

>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ferenc Kovacs  wrote:
>>>
>>> Bump

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ferenc Kovacs  wrote:
>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> (bump)

Le Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:31:07PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
> 
> any progress on this?
> I starting to feel lonely here.

Hi Ferenc,

happy new year !

...  you are not alone :)  don't give up !  Sometimes things are not quick in 
Debian ...

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ferenc Kovacs  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ferenc Kovacs  wrote:
>
>>
>> 2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> >> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
>> >> >
>> >> > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license
>> for pear/pecl extensions"):
>> >> > > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I
>> did
>> >> > > not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this
>> question
>> >> > > was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm
>> Ccing
>> >> > > leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
>> >> > IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?
>> >>
>> >> Neil
>> >
>> >
>> > any update on this?
>>
>> Bump
>>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> (bump)
>
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>

any progress on this?
I starting to feel lonely here.

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ferenc Kovacs  wrote:

>
> 2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
> >> >
> >> > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license
> for pear/pecl extensions"):
> >> > > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I
> did
> >> > > not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this
> question
> >> > > was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm
> Ccing
> >> > > leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
> >> >
> >> > On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
> >> > IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?
> >>
> >> Neil
> >
> >
> > any update on this?
>
> Bump
>
Happy Holidays!

(bump)

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
>> >
>> > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
pear/pecl extensions"):
>> > > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
>> > > not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
>> > > was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm
Ccing
>> > > leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
>> >
>> > On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
>> > IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
>> >
>>
>> AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
> any update on this?

Bump

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
> >
> > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
> pear/pecl extensions"):
> > > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
> > > not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
> > > was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm Ccing
> > > leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
> >
> > On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
> > IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
> >
>
> AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?
>
> Neil
>

any update on this?

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Neil McGovern]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (resending because my MUA messed up)
> 
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for 
> pear/pecl extensions"):
> > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
> > not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
> > was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm Ccing
> > leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
> 
> On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
> IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
> 

AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?

Neil

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ian Jackson]

(resending because my MUA messed up)

Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for 
pear/pecl extensions"):
> When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
> not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
> was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm Ccing
> leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.

On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?

Ian.

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Hi,

When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm Ccing
leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.

- Lucas


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ángel González]

If the current FAQ entry related to PHP hasn't changed since 
http://web.archive.org/web/20051016231155/http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html, 
I don't think the entry, and most importantly the phrase « That license, 
up to the 3.x which is actually out, is not really usable for anything 
else than PHP itself» can be applied to license v3.01 released *after* that.


IMHO the ftp masters shouldn't be applying such FAQ entry and have to 
reevaluate the new license instead.


(I should note that someone slightly edited it in the meantime, adding a 
comma and changing its → it's; so maybe they *did* review 3.01 and found 
nothing else worth changing)



Best

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Ángel González  wrote:

> If the current FAQ entry related to PHP hasn't changed since
> http://web.archive.org/web/20051016231155/http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html,
> I don't think the entry, and most importantly the phrase « That license, up
> to the 3.x which is actually out, is not really usable for anything else
> than PHP itself» can be applied to license v3.01 released *after* that.
>
> IMHO the ftp masters shouldn't be applying such FAQ entry and have to
> reevaluate the new license instead.
>

I suppose/hope they re-evaluted it when Ondřej contacted them regarding
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752629 but it seems that
the discussion ended with the same result:

I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is
suitable only for software that comes directly from "PHP Group",
that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself.

I would like to see those arguments for interpreting the license that way
and what else could we do to make it possible for debian to distribute
pear/pecl extensions published under pear|pecl.php.net under the PHP
license.



>
> (I should note that someone slightly edited it in the meantime, adding a
> comma and changing its → it's; so maybe they *did* review 3.01 and found
> nothing else worth changing)
>

those were changed by this commit, which fixed other typos and punctuation
mistakes done by a Luca who is an FTP Assistant:

commit a735b930272fbe56e602fa2d0b23288a55256ba3
Author: Luca Falavigna 
Date:   Mon Oct 17 09:34:20 2011 +

Fix typos

Signed-off-by: Luca Falavigna