While I agree we probably need to review 3-5.. It may be worth reminding debial-legal that AFAIK packages like phpgroupware, phpbb etc. violate the PHP licence.. So I do hope they are addressing those issues with as much vigor... ;)
The easiest solution is probably need to call this the PEAR licence... and just rename the phrases in 3-5 to say PEAR instead of PHP.... Regards Alan On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 18:30 -0400, Charles Fry wrote: > Hi, > > I am working with other members of the Debian devlopment team to include > many of your fine PEAR packages in Debian. One recurring problem has > been consistently arising however, that we have had a hard time > addressing at the correct level, which is why I am contacting you about > it. > > The problem is that many of the PEAR packages are licensed under the PHP > License. As you probably know, many packages take the PHP License by > default, probably because they assume that they are writting in PHP and > so they want to use the same license. > > The problem is that the current version of The PHP License (version 3.0) > contains several clauses which are specific to the PHP language, and > either inapplicable or even problematic for applications written in PHP. > > For the sake of completeness, and in an effort to get this issue ironed > out once and for all, let's walk through the six points of The PHP > License: > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > These two points are almost identical to the first two points in the BSD > License, and are all kinds of good. :-) > > 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products > derived from this software without prior written permission. For > written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor > may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may indicate that your software works in > conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it > "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" > > Hmm. These two points are very specific to distributions of the PHP > language. A PHP application that is distributed separately from PHP > itself should 1) not need to stipulate how the name "PHP" is used, and > 2) probably lacks any authority to make such claims. > > 5. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the > license from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing > version number. Once covered code has been published under a > particular version of the license, you may always continue to use it > under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such > covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license > published by the PHP Group. No one other than the PHP Group has the > right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under > this License. > > Good, good. > > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following > acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from > <http://www.php.net/>". > > Ouch. This means that I can't distribute a PEAR module released under > the PHP License without bundling in PHP itself. This makes it impossible > to distribute PEAR modules by themselves (i.e. not bundled with the PHP > language) in a deb or an rpm. :-( > > The problem is severe enough that we are currently unable to package > PEAR modules for Debian when they are relased under the PHP License. We > attempt to contact the upstream authors, and ask them to adopt a new > license, but our requests are not always accepted. > > So, what can be done to rectify this situation? > > 1) The PHP License itself could be modified to become a more generic > license, removing points that don't apply to PHP applications, making > it compatible with its current use by most PEAR modules. (Arguably the > resultant license would be indistinguishable from the BSD license.) > > 2) The PEAR Group could change its licensing policy, and no longer > include the PHP License in the list of officially acceptable PEAR > licenses. Of course it might take a while for existing modules to be > changed, but if the PEAR Group had an official position on this, it > would be a lot easier for us to work with individual package > maintainers to incrementally make this change. > > Your assistance in finding a workable solution to this problem is > solicited. As you can tell, we at Debian are quite excited about PEAR > and the clean interface which it provides for installing and working > with PHP modules. Thus our interest in working this issue out, so that > we can include more PEAR modules in Debian. :-) > > Let me clarify that while I maintain several Debian packages (including > several PEAR modules), I am not yet an official Debian developer. Nor do > I speak officially on behalf of the Debian community. I am simply > attempting to assist our two groups (Debian and PEAR) in coming to a > resolution which will address the licensing issue outlined above. I > realize that this issue may have been partially discussed in the past, > but given the current state of things, I consider it currently > unresolved. > > Thank you for your time and consideration in evaluating and dealing with > this licensing issue. > > Charles > -- Alan Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
