On 07/07/2014 04:19 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>> Unless I'm mistaken, the wording in the PHP license makes it >>> invalid for anybody that isn't actually the PHP project to use >>> without making a false claim that "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE >>> PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM". > >> IMO, you are mistaking indeed. Anyone contributing a module to >> pear.php.net PEAR channel can be considered from the "PHP development >> team". That's a question of view, and we've accepted that view, so >> why should we go back after we have accepted packages based on this? >> This is also the view of upstream PHP (the language) and upstream >> PEAR module contributors, as much as one can tell. If you do not >> agree, please point to anyone who expressed otherwise. > > One question / consideration: > > Even assuming that all contributions accepted into modules hosted on > pear.php.net are considered automatically "from the PHP Development > Team", and thus that the statement in the license would remain accurate, > wouldn't this mean that it wouldn't be possible to make local > modifications to a module found there and distribute them by other means > (e.g. even within one's own organization) without either making a false > statement in the license or violating the license? > > If it would mean that, then wouldn't this license be considered non-free?
Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you feel like it). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
