Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
You're advocating a position, then, that the PHP license can require recipients to make false, and even nonsensical, claims, and that this is not a problem to be addressed by improving the license terms. I think that this is similar to the BSD licenses. Look at /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD. It specifically states: Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. From this, it would seem that it is possible to use this license even if you are not the University. Why else would Debian keep this in /usr/share/common-licenses? Is that the position of the PHP Group: that a requirement for the recipient to make false claims is “absolutely no problem” of the license? I don't think that the position of the PHP Group is that requiring the recipient to make false claims is absolutely no problem; the license works for *them*; it just doesn't work for anyone else who chooses to use their license When applied to software that is not available from *.php.net, the license terms may not be sensible, but they still can be followed. Is the fact they can't sensibly be followed not a problem to be addressed by improving the license terms? It could be addressed by improving the licensing terms, but it isn't necessary, and the PHP Group seems very unwilling to do so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d88e86.3060...@bitmessage.ch
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
2014.07.30. 3:35, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au ezt írta: Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com writes: I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from *.php.net carrying the PHP license. The license talks about PHP Software which we define as software you get from/via *.php.net. Specifically, the license text URL:http://php.net/license/3_01.txt has this clause: 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: This product includes PHP software, freely available from http://www.php.net/software/. Nowhere is “PHP software” defined in the license. Will you update the license to make your above definition explicit in the license terms? for the record: http://www.php.net/software.php explicitly lists php.net, pear.php.net and pecl.php.net as the places you can get the Software from.
Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Pierre Joye wrote: As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net. This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes *all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistribution of derived works is only permitted from *.php.net which is clearly inaccep- table. This makes not just forking the software impossible but also dis- tribution of binaries made from modified sources, for example. On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not, in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but that distributing the original source alongside patches is okay (e.g. as 3.0 (quilt) source package). Since Debian isn't distributing source pak- kages, this does not help us. A written permission from gr...@php.net is not helpful either, because of DFSG#8. (In BSD ports, we also do not distribute binaries of PHP.) I think you should rethink your stance and the PHP licence on all of the issues listed. Similar issues arose from the Firefox trademark after all (and it would be fun if Debian distributed Icescriptinglanguage, instead of PHP, except for those affected). bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lrajm9$j5p$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On 30/07/14 21:07, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Pierre Joye wrote: As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net. This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes *all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistribution of derived works is only permitted from *.php.net which is clearly inaccep- table. This makes not just forking the software impossible but also dis- tribution of binaries made from modified sources, for example. I agree that this would violate DFSG#3. However, I'm not convinced that the PHP license is only valid if the software is distributed under *.php.net. Nowhere within the license does it say that the program being licensed is PHP software, so the PHP Group's definition of PHP software is irrelevant. On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not, in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but that distributing the original source alongside patches is okay (e.g. as 3.0 (quilt) source package). Since Debian isn't distributing source pak- kages, this does not help us. A written permission from gr...@php.net is not helpful either, because of DFSG#8. Good point. (I think you're referring to section 4; correct me if I'm wrong.) This would make PHP-licensed software *with PHP in the title* non-free until rebranded, like firefox was until rebranded to iceweasel. This would not, however, make the license non-free, it would just make for some annoying rebranding, which should be much more manageable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d8d73e.2010...@bitmessage.ch
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On 30/07/2014 06:09, Pierre Joye wrote: hi Walter, On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu wrote: Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote: I've find it a bit disturbing, that ftpmasters can make a decision on legal grounds(which is the probably the highest priority for debian as far as I'm concerned), without any backing from debian-legal debian-legal has no authority to decide anything. It is just a mailing list. We can discuss things here day and night and ftp-masters can ignore it. With that said, debian-legal can be useful when issues are clear-cut. For example, if someone asks if the Apache 2.0 license is compatible with the GPL (no for GPL 2.0, yes for GPL 3.0). Think of debian-legal as the secretary for ftp-masters. We can sometimes divine what they are thinking, but the final word belongs to ftp-masters. In any case, in the interest of making this email constructive, my take on the PHP license is that it does need to be fixed. From ftp-masters REJECT-FAQ, they also think so. So my advice would be to just use a well known, existing license and be done with it. Judging from the existing PHP license, the closest thing would be the 3 clause BSD license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause Apache 2.0 would also be a good choice. Now, I understand that changing licenses is a huge chore, and the benefits can sometimes be intangible. The main benefit is that you will never have to deal with us again ;) As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net. I see this move as yet another attempt to force developers to abandon a totally valid license in the name of the Debian ideal, Free Softwares. I cannot blame anyone willing to reach this goal but as a matter of fact, there is no issue with the PHP license, not anymore since 3.01. And about dealing with Debian about that, well, Debian has actually more to lose than any other 3rd parties. Let focus on getting the web stack rocks on Debian instead. Cheers, Hi all, Is it possible we can then work towards a resolution on this near decade old problem? Now we've established that the PHP License v3.01 resolves the problem outlined in the 2005 email, surely the PHP License can be removed from the Serious violations list on the Debian FTP. https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d8d36d.7090...@gmail.com
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Hi all, Is it possible we can then work towards a resolution on this near decade old problem? Now we've established that the PHP License v3.01 resolves the problem outlined in the 2005 email, surely the PHP License can be removed from the Serious violations list on the Debian FTP. https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Thanks. When was the problem outlined in the 2005 email resolved? The debate is still very much going on on -legal, at least. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d8dd7b.8090...@bitmessage.ch
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
There has been an ongoing and wholly unproductive conversation on -legal about some difficulties with the PHP licence. Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ? Do we have a relationship with the SFLC we could use for this ? If so I would be happy to write up a summary of the facts and the questions to put to our lawyers. I think this is likely to be straightforward but I would send a draft to -legal and ftpmaster@ to check that the answer would actually resolve the problem one way or another. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21464.57458.594359.314...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Hi Ian, Thanks for bringing this up. On 30/07/14 at 13:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: There has been an ongoing and wholly unproductive conversation on -legal about some difficulties with the PHP licence. Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ? Do we have a relationship with the SFLC we could use for this ? Sure, we could ask for advice from SFLC about this. If so I would be happy to write up a summary of the facts and the questions to put to our lawyers. I think this is likely to be straightforward but I would send a draft to -legal and ftpmaster@ to check that the answer would actually resolve the problem one way or another. I think that such a summary would be very useful, at least to increase the awareness about the issue, and to improve the description of the violation on ftpmasters' REJECT FAQ. However, based on my own (possibly limited) understanding of the issue[1], this is case of a license (the PHP License) with sub-optimal wording that is misused by third parties, as it was initially designed for PHP itself, and is used for random software written in PHP. As a result, the license adds some restrictions for derivative works that could prevent software under that license to meet the DFSG. So I think that it is important to distinguish between two different questions: (1) Is there a legal risk for Debian to distribute such software? (2) Does the Debian project want to tolerate and ignore this sad situation, or try to make the world a better place by working on fixing this mess? [1] built on reading #728196, the thread starting at https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00493.html and the one starting at https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/07/msg00024.html When you have a summary and questions ready, we can work together on forwarding them to SFLC for legal advice. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): On 30/07/14 at 13:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ? Do we have a relationship with the SFLC we could use for this ? Sure, we could ask for advice from SFLC about this. OK, good. If so I would be happy to write up a summary of the facts and the questions to put to our lawyers. I think this is likely to be straightforward but I would send a draft to -legal and ftpmaster@ to check that the answer would actually resolve the problem one way or another. I think that such a summary would be very useful, at least to increase the awareness about the issue, and to improve the description of the violation on ftpmasters' REJECT FAQ. Yes. However, based on my own (possibly limited) understanding of the issue[1], this is case of a license (the PHP License) with sub-optimal wording that is misused by third parties, as it was initially designed for PHP itself, and is used for random software written in PHP. As a result, the license adds some restrictions for derivative works that could prevent software under that license to meet the DFSG. That is the contention of the critics, yes. So I think that it is important to distinguish between two different questions: (1) Is there a legal risk for Debian to distribute such software? I would want to ask whether there is a risk for others, too. (2) Does the Debian project want to tolerate and ignore this sad situation, or try to make the world a better place by working on fixing this mess? If we have a piece of legal advice which says that the risk is minimal, then surely that would be sufficient to make the world a place. It would surely be nice to fix this wrinkle in the PHP licence but if it doesn't actually meaningfully prevent anyone from doing anything they would want to, then no-one's actual freedom is impinged and reacting to it by throwing this software out of the archive is quite disproportionate. On the other hand if it _does_ pose a legal risk, then a legal opinion to say so would be very helpful in persuading the software's upstreams that it needs to be fixed. When you have a summary and questions ready, we can work together on forwarding them to SFLC for legal advice. I will get back to you. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21464.63997.84090.692...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: However, based on my own (possibly limited) understanding of the issue[1], this is case of a license (the PHP License) with sub-optimal wording that is misused by third parties, as it was initially designed for PHP itself, and is used for random software written in PHP. That, too. But AIUI that licence also forbids us from shipping a modified version of PHP without rebranding (like Firefox(tm)). bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lrb022$oik$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote: Pierre Joye wrote: As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net. This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes *all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistribution of derived works is only permitted from *.php.net which is clearly inaccep- table. This makes not just forking the software impossible but also dis- tribution of binaries made from modified sources, for example. This is a wrong interpretation. The releases are/must be distributed under *.php.net to be able to use the PHP License. It means that one reading the license after having installed php using apt-get php5 will find all software installed with php5. There is nothing wrong here and nothing about the location of the software release is against Free Software. The incompatibility between Free Software's GPL and the PHP license is only due to the naming restriction and nothing else. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAEZPtU5aXtMHv6o4V5Fw=o-yh77Pd0pDd=o5bbnccrqn62o...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote: On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not, in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but that distributing the original source alongside patches is okay (e.g. as 3.0 (quilt) source package). Since Debian isn't distributing source pak- kages, this does not help us. A written permission from gr...@php.net is not helpful either, because of DFSG#8. Good point. (I think you're referring to section 4; correct me if I'm Right. wrong.) This would make PHP-licensed software *with PHP in the title* non-free until rebranded, like firefox was until rebranded to iceweasel. Indeed. And seeing this, I think that Debian may ship neither the PHP interpreter nor anything else under PHP licence without doing a rebranding. This would not, however, make the license non-free, it would just make for some annoying rebranding, which should be much more manageable. It would, however, make the licence inacceptable for Debian for anything bearing PHP in its name, which is kinda the point of the PHP licence. This is not what the license says. The license says you cannot create a derivative project and use PHP in its name. hhvm is a derivative work for example. Distributing php, even by back porting patches, is not a derivative work. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAEZPtU7iSD4faxeoti_1=icf-cfpqtfo6dza9ufvhohz9da...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Hi! This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes *all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistribution of derived works is only permitted from *.php.net which is clearly inaccep- table. This makes not just forking the software impossible but also dis- tribution of binaries made from modified sources, for example. I've by now read the PHP license here: http://php.net/license/3_01.txt about a dozen times and I still can't figure out where the claim redistribution of derived works is only permitted from *.php.net could come from. This of course is false both theoretically and practically. On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not, in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP - but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a product derived from PHP but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make their own fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of PHP. I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute under the name of PHP is anything but the original product, so I don't see a problem here. I'm not sure why there's an effort to seek maximally contorted interpretation of the rules that would appear to disallow Debian to do something that Debian is already doing, has been doing for years, and nobody ever objected to Debian doing and nobody ever intends to object. To me this effort does not seem to be constructive, and not leading to any improvement of anything, but only to more inconvenience and annoyance to everybody involved. (and it would be fun if Debian distributed Icescriptinglanguage, instead of PHP, except for those affected). I think taking this route would make Debian a huge disservice. Of course, 99.999% of Debian users would immediately switch to using a third-party repo that would include actual PHP packages instead of that contraption, but there's no reason to inflict this onto Debian users. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d94ed1.1020...@sugarcrm.com
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On 30 July 2014 22:00:17 CEST, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote: If Debian OTOH decides to make their own fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of PHP. I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute under the name of PHP is anything but the original product, so I don't see a problem here. I'm not sure why there's an effort to seek maximally contorted interpretation of the rules that would appear to disallow Debian to do something that Debian is already doing, has been doing for years, and nobody ever objected to Debian doing and nobody ever intends to object. To me this effort does not seem to be constructive, and not leading to any improvement of anything, but only to more inconvenience and annoyance to everybody involved. I think everyone does claim that. You do know Debian doesn't just distribute the binaries from Php.net, right? No contortion: the php5 in Debian is a derived work. Here's a list of patches http://sources.debian.net/src/php5/5.6.0%7Erc2%2Bdfsg-5/debian/patches I agree that renaming would not be constructive. Why can't people call this PHP, please, PHP project? Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/c6887a8b-365a-4cae-8378-51037985d...@email.android.com
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote: On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not, in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP - but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a product derived from PHP but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make their own fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of PHP. I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute under the name of PHP is anything but the original product, so I don't see a problem here. I'm not sure why there's an effort to seek maximally contorted interpretation of the rules that would appear to disallow Debian to do something that Debian is already doing, has been doing for years, and nobody ever objected to Debian doing and nobody ever intends to object. To me this effort does not seem to be constructive, and not leading to any improvement of anything, but only to more inconvenience and annoyance to everybody involved. They have a point. A buggy php version with an added patch that avoids that it crashes when run on even dates could be considered -from a legal POV- a «derivative product of PHP». Legal-speak is quite different than common sense. Trying to keep the spirit of the PHP License and at the same time solve that strict interpretation, I propose the following change to the PHP License 3.01, which will hopefully please both parties: --- 3_01.txt2014-07-30 22:58:13.682449866 +0200 +++ 3_02.txt2014-07-30 23:20:07.332445907 +0200 @@ -24,6 +24,13 @@ 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 + + 4½ On the other hand, minor patches to products already containing + the PHP label, including without exception those fixing its + security and/or functionality, are not considered a new product + and do not require any additional permission. Nonetheless their + version string should be modified in order to clearly differenciate + them from the official versions published by the original author(s). 5. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a Notes: There is some ambiguity on what is a «minor patch», but I feel it's better to leave that to the courts should a lawsuit really arise (which would be a non-clear case) than attempting to set an arbitrary limit on number of diff lines or an appropiate ratio with the original code, which would fail sooner or later. Use Common Sense for determining if it's a minor patch. Still, bugfixes are explicitely listed as minor, given that they will be the most common case and the one which concerns Debian modifications. The result of those small modifications of PHP-labeled products is that requisites of §3 and §4 are waived, which IMHO is in the spirit of the PHP License as asserted by the current usage. The mention for modifying the version string was inspired by Thorsten email, and is related to the clause present on other licenses that a Modified work should be presented as such. A variant would be changing the should into shall. I chose the former version to allow waiving the requirement for trivial changes or those without a clear version string (think on builds from git or from proposed patches). The term “original author(s)” was preferred over “The PHP Group” for including works by third parties. PS: 4½ is just a placeholder for discussion, the final version would need renumbering. Would this change have the blessing of Debian and the approval of PHP? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d969ef.7090...@gmail.com
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote: Trying to keep the spirit of the PHP License and at the same time solve that strict interpretation, I propose the following change to the PHP License 3.01, which will hopefully please both parties: Stop. Please just stop. Please pick an existing, well known license so that we do not have to argue *again* over whether this really solves all of the problems. Thanks, Walter Landry
RES: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Walter : I agree to stop discussing this. The problem is not PHP. Only Debian can't accept de PHP license. The PHP License is good for PHP as is? YES!!! that's all. Alejandro M.S -Mensagem original- De: Walter Landry [mailto:wlan...@caltech.edu] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 30 de julho de 2014 19:35 Para: keis...@gmail.com Cc: smalys...@sugarcrm.com; t...@debian.org; pecl-...@lists.php.net; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Assunto: Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license ngel Gonz lez keis...@gmail.com wrote: Trying to keep the spirit of the PHP License and at the same time solve that strict interpretation, I propose the following change to the PHP License 3.01, which will hopefully please both parties: Stop. Please just stop. Please pick an existing, well known license so that we do not have to argue *again* over whether this really solves all of the problems. Thanks, Walter Landry --- Este email está limpo de vírus e malwares porque a proteção do avast! Antivírus está ativa. http://www.avast.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/019f01cfac47$be038170$3a0a8450$@com
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Le Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 02:38:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : That, too. But AIUI that licence also forbids us from shipping a modified version of PHP without rebranding (like Firefox(tm)). I think that we are ridiculing ourselves by ignoring the arguments that have been given to us by the PHP developers in the past. See, we are getting famous in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP_License#Debian_packaging_controversy Debian maintainers have had a long-standing discussion (since at least 2005) about the validity of the PHP license.[4] Expressed concerns include that the license contains statements about the software it covers that are specific to distributing PHP itself, which, for other software than PHP itself therefore would be false statements. I think that the situation is different: - It has been proposed by a developer to remove PHP modules licensed under the PHP license, in application of a policy that had been neglected for years. This proposition was eventually represented by release-critical bugs. - For some PHP modules, the bugs have been closed, and there was no further reaction. - In the meantime the usual vocal people sending the majority of emails on our mailing lists are giving the impression that removing PHP modules is a position of Debian as a whole, while it is definitely not. This drama can be ended by closing the remaining bugs and going back to work. This has been done for packages that some people care most, like php-memcached, and could be done for other packages. When things have cooled down, it can be proposed to correct the REJECT-FAQ according to current practice of accepting PHP-licensed code. Back to the question of rebranding, the PHP developers have already explained that because PHP is a three-letter word, they are not in a position to protect their name with a trademark. Therefore, they do it with a license. We can not take Mate and distribute it as “Gnome Plus”. We can not take a fork of PHP and call it “BetterPhp”. People can not take a Debian CD, add non-free software, and sell it as “Debian Enhanced”. We and other protect our names, and PHP does it too. I do not see a problem. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140730230300.gb24...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Hi! I think everyone does claim that. You do know Debian doesn't just Everyone being whom specifically? distribute the binaries from Php.net, right? No contortion: the php5 in Debian is a derived work. Here's a list of patches http://sources.debian.net/src/php5/5.6.0%7Erc2%2Bdfsg-5/debian/patches There is no such thing as binaries from php.net, at least when Debian-supported OSes are concerned. But even if they were, it's not a separate product in any sane meaning of a product. Adding a config file does not make it into a new product. Neither I have ever seen any communication from Debian claiming it is anything but the product we all know and love as PHP. One could invent a thousand of contorted definition of product, including defining every binary with different sha1 checksum as separate product, but this pointless exercise has nothing to do with PHP and is just that - pointless. I agree that renaming would not be constructive. Why can't people call this PHP, please, PHP project? They can, and they were told so many, many times. Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style? No, this is completely infeasible - this would require asking permission from every contributor from the start of the project. Moreover, this titanic effort would be completely useless as it would achieve no useful purpose, because everybody - including Debian - is free to distribute PHP under PHP license right now, and nobody ever tried to prevent anybody from doing so. Literally nobody except Debian people ever said there's any problem in that. Frankly, I am astonished at how much effort is spend to find trouble where there was not ever one. Can't we spend our time on something more useful? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d985bb.5030...@sugarcrm.com
Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote: Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style? No, this is completely infeasible That is not correct. It is very easy to change the license because the license has an upgrade clause (condition #5). Cheers, Walter Landry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140730.175410.333118138785423294.wlan...@caltech.edu
