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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
