On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:23:24PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >>> > Do you think that this licence does not require a developer > >>> > of a modified package (other than PHP) to lie by saying > >>> > "This product includes PHP software"? > >>> > >>> Perhaps the PHP folks subscribe to the view that PHP scripts are > >>> derivative works of PHP. > >> > >> Ye ghods, I'd hope not. That would be similar to believing that this > >> message is a derivative of the English Grammar manual I read in school. > > > > Or that all non-trivial Emacs Lisp code must be licensed under the > > GPL. This position is not *that* unusual... > > Not being unusual doesn't make it sensible or correct.
Just to take a guess at where this strange claim might have originated: The FSF (from what I understand) claims that binaries linked against GPL libraries are derivative works of the library, because the resulting binary has pieces of the GPL software in it. This isn't obviously true with C libraries, which has led to a lot of debate around the topic, but the claim isn't entirely unreasonable. They do not claim (again, AFAIK) that the *source* of the program using it is a derivative work of the library it uses. "PHP scripts are derivative works of PHP" sounds like someone misinterpreted the FSF's claims, and ended up believing that the source of a program is a derivative work of its libraries. (That, unlike the FSF's claims, seems to make very little reasonable sense.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
