On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Wez Furlong wrote:
All will be revealed soon.
Just wondering what sort of timeframe you mean with soon... any idea?
We're atleast another week futher along without any
On 21.12.2007, at 19:38, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Sounds to me like we should stop accepting this legal BS. Then
they will only be able to pay for a nice little house if they
write understandable stuff or nothing is they are unwilling to
adapt to the demands of their customers.
It is
Am 20.12.2007 um 23:43 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
On 20.12.2007, at 20:54, David Zülke wrote:
Am 20.12.2007 um 19:25 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is.
The purpose is that a project/company/whoever has written
confirmation that the developer
On 21.12.2007, at 10:08, David Zülke wrote:
I wonder why they need such elaborate bla bla to just say so
trivial things. The copyright part seems irrelevant given your
assessment and the patent clause seems overly complex if all they
are saying that any patents that are infringed upon by
Sounds to me like we should stop accepting this legal BS. Then they will
only be able to pay for a nice little house if they write understandable
stuff or nothing is they are unwilling to adapt to the demands of their
customers.
It is quite impossible to write anything understandable for the
On Dec 21, 2007 7:38 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only thing needed for this is willingness to actually listen.
Listen the masses: NO, we don't want CLAs in php.net, period.
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
On Dec 21, 2007 9:55 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only thing needed for this is willingness to actually listen.
Listen the masses: NO, we don't want CLAs in php.net, period.
I like when people call themselves masses, it is amusing.
I don't know how much answers you need
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:14:02 +0100, Pierre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 9:55 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only thing needed for this is willingness to actually listen.
Listen the masses: NO, we don't want CLAs in php.net, period.
I like when people call
On 30.11.2007, at 00:09, Steph Fox wrote:
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS.
Just
And waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an
option.
But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source projects
(Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to grant an
unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to use your
contribution, and, if _you_ hold patents on this invention, that you
grant the same
Hello David, Lukas,
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
agreement here by telling us stuff you learned while being
Sure, Marcus, I understand that. I was just explaining to Lukas what
this commonly used CLA variant mandates.
David
P.S: in strict legal terms, even in PHP, you just implicitly grant a
perpetual, royalty-free etc license to the PHP project by committing a
changeset as in many European
On 20.12.2007, at 16:31, David Zülke wrote:
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source
projects (Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to
grant an unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to
use your contribution, and, if _you_ hold
On 20.12.2007, at 17:07, Marcus Boerger wrote:
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
agreement here by telling us stuff you learned while being part of
that
group - or you are speculating. You should however not do that!
Maybe not
even IBM is interested in
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
David
Am 20.12.2007 um 17:26 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
On 20.12.2007, at 16:31, David Zülke wrote:
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source
projects (Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to
grant an
On 20.12.2007, at 17:57, David Zülke wrote:
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not require that
you guarantee that your contribution is not violating any 3rd-party
patents.
Nobody can require that, that'd be stupid - how one can guarantee nobody
has patent to something? Even very expensive patent search doesn't
This tells me that I need to have all patents that the code infringes
upon. I know that there is this licensedable by You thingi in there,
but sorry I cannot parse run on sentences like that. Does licenseable by
You mean that I have to grant the license or that I am legaqlly entitled
to even
On 20.12.2007, at 18:41, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not
require that you guarantee that your contribution is not violating
any 3rd-party patents.
Nobody can require that, that'd be stupid - how one can guarantee
nobody has patent to
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
Copyright and patents are different things, and unfortunately no, it's
not all
On 20.12.2007, at 18:58, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
BTW - I hope you don't think that if you didn't sign the CLA and
you contributed code to PHP that you didn't have rights to
contribute, not signing would help you in any way. Or that if you
contributed code that violates patents, not
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Anyways, maybe I am just dense, but maybe all the CLA authors
should just put in an effort to make it possible for people to
understand their licenses without having to consult a lawyer.
Maybe, just maybe, it was just a bad idea to start this discussion
with a CVS
Of course. The only difference being that if users of my code cannot
fallback on a CLA as a deflector, they have a much bigger interest in
Deflector of what? CLA gives the users of the code reasonable - not
100%, but reasonably good - warranty that their behind stays out of
trouble when they
On 20.12.2007, at 19:19, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Of course. The only difference being that if users of my code
cannot fallback on a CLA as a deflector, they have a much bigger
interest in
Deflector of what? CLA gives the users of the code reasonable - not
100%, but reasonably good -
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is. My understand is
As far as I understand, the purpose of the CLA usually is to make
reasonable assurance for the user that the code in the project is safe
to use and nobody would give them trouble for using it - by claiming the
code is
since when has anything in PHP core required a CLA?
I think you know the answer to that.
And why change that now?
There could be the reasons to do it (some described in this thread), and
the reasons not to do it. But before deciding which ones are better, I'd
propose to understand what
there is nothing to discuss here, unless you personally keep insisting on.
If you don't have anything to discuss, then don't ;)
We have lived pretty damn good without any such thing. And alone the fact
that requiring an NDA to be signed will kick out core developers should be
enough for you
Hello Stanislav,
there is nothing to discuss here, unless you personally keep insisting on.
We have lived pretty damn good without any such thing. And alone the fact
that requiring an NDA to be signed will kick out core developers should be
enough for you to ever know. Unless you prefer to get
Hello Stanislav,
whom are you helping? A potential CLA?
In the meantime *I* only wonder that none of the original PDO inventors has
any clue what is going on - well besides Wez of course who joined efforts
after the first PDO implementation.
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 8:40:31 PM, you wrote:
Am 20.12.2007 um 19:25 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is.
The purpose is that a project/company/whoever has written confirmation
that the developer who contributes something gives the respective
entity full permission and license on copyright
Hello Stanislav,
since when has anything in PHP core required a CLA? And whay change that now?
marcus
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 6:59:53 PM, you wrote:
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That
whom are you helping? A potential CLA?
For example, I hope I just helped Lukas and probably others to
understand what CLAs are for. I can't help CLA since CLA is neither a
person nor any entity to be helped.
In the meantime *I* only wonder that none of the original PDO inventors has
any
There is apparently something. I won't let you continue. You cannot shut me
up because you don't like me disagreeing on any NDA or CLA. Yet unless as
I never intended to shut you up - you said that there's nothing to
discuss. Apparently, there is :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:40 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
currently the users seem to live quite good with the licenses granted by
the PHP License 3.01.
Quite good can be always made better. For example, you may claim PDO
is perfect and doesn't need any help from DB vendors, and
So you were talking about the purpose was making the user's life
safer, now you say that DB vendors need a CLA for contribution. Sorry,
now I'm confused.
You are easily confused :) I suggest you to read detailed explanations I
wrote previously. It makes both safer to use and easier to
On Dec 20, 2007 5:57 PM, David Zülke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
It is not clear at all. Or we are simply too stupid to understand it.
And as we don't agree on things we don't understand, let forget the
CLA once and for ever. I think there is a very large
internet related economy (intra, extra or internet applications). None
of the very large companies using PHP have had any issues with the PHP
licenses or the lack of CLA.
Just out of sheer curiosity - how many large companies did you ask about
having or not having problems in this regard?
On Dec 20, 2007 10:09 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
internet related economy (intra, extra or internet applications). None
of the very large companies using PHP have had any issues with the PHP
licenses or the lack of CLA.
Just out of sheer curiosity - how many large
On 20.12.2007, at 20:54, David Zülke wrote:
Am 20.12.2007 um 19:25 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is.
The purpose is that a project/company/whoever has written
confirmation that the developer who contributes something gives the
respective
Derick Rethans wrote:
What is the plan?
Assuming there is a plan.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Wez Furlong wrote:
All will be revealed soon.
Just wondering what sort of timeframe you mean with soon... any idea?
We're atleast another week futher along without any news. I find this
getting more and more disgusting. What
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Wez Furlong wrote:
All will be revealed soon.
Just wondering what sort of timeframe you mean with soon... any idea?
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
However, a ~couple months ago IBM gave permission to remove this
copyright (because the authors are listed as general contributors,
thus representing IBM) although we've not yet implemented this
removal. We did [temporary] remove it about six months ago but...
There is no requirement
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:58:01 -0500, Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:37 AM, Jay Pipes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
With PHP, the situation is different. The foundation of PHP was laid by
Rasmus Lerdorf together with a large group of independent developers,
Dan Scott wrote:
So an author can and should maintain copyright over the material they
contribute, but they contribute it under a license that specifies the
terms under which that material can be used (the PHP License, for this
project) by others.
Well, in theory, at least. Many open source
Hi Johannes,
On a side-note: It's not only about peer review - without signing the
CLA one might still read the code and send reports to the maintainers.
I was responding to Richard when I wrote that. He was operating under the
assumption that php.net have control over what goes into a CLA'd
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 21:16 +0200, Jacques Marneweck wrote:
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.
If the spec is CLAd what will the implementation be? Do you expect a
spec needs
On Nov 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Dan Scott wrote:
In that case, you should:
1) Have a legal entity that you can assign copyright to (PHP Group and
PHP Documentation Group are not legal entities and therefore cannot
hold copyright)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Dan Scott wrote:
In that case, you should:
1) Have a legal entity that you can assign copyright to (PHP Group and
PHP Documentation Group are not legal entities and therefore cannot
hold copyright) and
Actually, I think the issue is more that:
However, a ~couple
On 30/11/2007, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Philip,
for the future please do not accept any copyright other than
The PHP Group or The PHP documentation Grroup. Thanks.
Otherwise comanies are going to own PHP piece by piece.
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 9:59:08
Hello Rasmus,
the same applies to me as I pointed out to Richard already (as an example
to Stephs argument). An NDA or CLA usually means that you can talk about
stuff you do that contains patents and all that. Now we are not intersted in
patents at all. And the solutiuon is easy keep your
On Nov 30, 2007 10:43 AM, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Philip,
for the future please do not accept any copyright other than
The PHP Group or The PHP documentation Grroup. Thanks.
Otherwise comanies are going to own PHP piece by piece.
It was never accepted.
The docs, with
Hello Philip,
for the future please do not accept any copyright other than
The PHP Group or The PHP documentation Grroup. Thanks.
Otherwise comanies are going to own PHP piece by piece.
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 9:59:08 PM, you wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Steph Fox
Dan Scott wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 5:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in
On Nov 30, 2007 10:37 AM, Jay Pipes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
With PHP, the situation is different. The foundation of PHP was laid by
Rasmus Lerdorf together with a large group of independent developers,
and the central parts of PHP underly a different license and copyright
regime from
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Marcus Boerger wrote:
I do not care for IBM problems. Not at all. If people want to commit
they can do it in their free time. If IBM now thinks they have to make
PHP suitable for their own stuff then they are obviously willing to
spend quite some interest because
On Nov 29, 2007 6:03 AM, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Marcus Boerger wrote:
I do not care for IBM problems. Not at all. If people want to commit
they can do it in their free time. If IBM now thinks they have to make
PHP suitable for their own stuff then
To add to this, I think that if IBM (and others) are so keen on having
PHP support their nice databases, they should also realize that it is
them that should be nice to *us* and not the other way around. We (as in
What I really don't understand is why so many people are so quick to
jump into
this thread popped up. It almost seems like the beginnings of a
long-term hostile takeover plan, beginning quietly in the shadows.
Come on... Really.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals
On Nov 29, 2007 12:01 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this thread popped up. It almost seems like the beginnings of a
long-term hostile takeover plan, beginning quietly in the shadows.
Come on... Really.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Stanislav,
noone disagrees to any work any company is willing to do. Infact we should
be extremely happy about the work done by some IBM people lately (to stay
with the same company example). At least I am for one really happy! However
hiding in some secret rooms and deciding something
On Nov 29, 2007 5:59 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To add to this, I think that if IBM (and others) are so keen on having
PHP support their nice databases, they should also realize that it is
them that should be nice to *us* and not the other way around. We (as in
What I
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing anything with the code. As in:
+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
That's what 'unavail' means.
Surely all this us/them,
On Nov 29, 2007 12:49 PM, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing anything with the code. As in:
+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
On Nov 29, 2007 1:09 PM, David Coallier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 12:49 PM, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing anything with
Hello Steph,
for example that would exclude me and I guess others as well.
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 6:49:34 PM, you wrote:
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing
On 29 Nov 2007, at 7:49 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it
prevents any of the core contributors doing anything with the code.
As in:
+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.
Someone told you that, or have you developed psychic powers?
The same applies, regardless. If a commit to that module breaks the PHP
manual build,
On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Steph Fox wrote:
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.
Someone told you that, or have you developed psychic powers?
The same applies, regardless. If a
Richard Quadling wrote:
The idea of a major world player contributing to our lill' old PHP
sounds really exciting. The more the merrier, as long as the
peer-review process works (and it seems to have kept me out of the
core well enough!), let them come!
We welcome any and all contributions,
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
It is long and complicated and I don't see how anybody could sign this
without getting legal advice. You would also need to pass this by the
legal department of the company you work for. Legal where I work
wouldn't let us sign something like this
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for some company's products.
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the
We welcome any and all contributions, of course, but where there are
strings attached it starts to get complicated. The problem here is that
I thought the whole purpose of CLA was to ensure there are *no* strings
attached to the contributed code.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software
On Nov 29, 2007 5:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't
use PHP
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS. Just
And waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an option.
But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from without discussion is?
- Steph
--
PHP
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for some company's products.
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process we
have, they care about how well
On Nov 29, 2007 11:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for some company's products.
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they
On 29/11/2007, Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 5:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the world but no
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 14:56 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for some company's products.
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS. Just
And waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an option.
Hi,
This is a dangerous approach Stas, the shoot first, explain later
approach is a closed-source model. Fortunately,
Hello Daniel,
I do not care for IBM problems. Not at all. If people want to commit they
can do it in their free time. If IBM now thinks they have to make PHP
suitable for their own stuff then they are obviously willing to spend quite
some interest because they have a much bigger business
On 28.11.2007, at 00:28, Pierre wrote:
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like
that.
I find it amazing how oblivious to community concerns this all is.
Anyways, from some other discussions I gathered that the main thing
that is
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 28.11.2007, at 00:28, Pierre wrote:
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like that.
I find it amazing how oblivious to community concerns this all is.
Anyways, from some other discussions I gathered that the
On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 28.11.2007, at 00:28, Pierre wrote:
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like that.
I find it amazing how oblivious to community concerns
Daniel Brown wrote:
Without sounding too naive on this, I hope, isn't it also possible
that IBM's internal policies require them to have CLAs in place for
tax and documentation purposes? Or perhaps to cover their own
engineers from liability by claiming them as open source developers,
Hello Wez.
Please explain what is this 'pdo-specs' thing and why CLA is needed to commit
there.
For some reason I thought we've agreed that CLA/NDA-protected or any other
restricted-access things should not be placed into PHP CVS.
pdo_odbc and other read-but-do-not-write stuff have already
All will be revealed soon.
--Wez.
On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Antony Dovgal wrote:
Hello Wez.
Please explain what is this 'pdo-specs' thing and why CLA is needed
to commit there.
For some reason I thought we've agreed that CLA/NDA-protected or any
other restricted-access things
+^pdo-specs $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/loginfo.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] $USER %{sVv}
For consistency with the rest of the commit dedicated mailinglists,
should this list be named [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And out of curiosity (since the word is that Microsoft has a hand in
this), who will be the patent holder? ;)
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like that.
--Pierre
On Nov 27, 2007 11:51 PM, Hannes Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+^pdo-specs $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/loginfo.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] $USER %{sVv}
For consistency with the rest of the commit
89 matches
Mail list logo
