On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 10:23 15-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> >I think one of the problems with this is that even if php-dev comes up
> >with a system for determining which feature it wants to see in PHP, we
> >still depend on Zeev, Andi or someone else @ Zend to implement them.
> >An RFC system would be a support for Zend's decision-making. At the
> >end of the day, due to the licensing issues, php-dev is not the body
> >governing the language, it has an advisory role only.
> Generally, I agree with you, except it's not because of licensing issues
> (will we end up with a load of features suddenly getting into PHP if/when
> the engine license changes?). Many other projects behave that way. With a
> language definition, "vox populi, vox Dei" doesn't tend to work very well.
Yes, the difference is, this creates a situation where the PHP Development
team does not have control of the core language, Zend Technologies Ltd.
does. Whether this is a issue with a basis in principle or a basis in
practicality is up to debate, however, the problem remains.
Zend having control of the language has nothing to do with "vox
Populi, vox Dei" (translated "the voice of the People, the voice of
the Gods"), its more of a matter of *who* has control -- Zend
Technologies or the PHP Developers.
And tell me, what other languages have a commercial body controlling
the evolution? Certainly not any that I know of. Yes, they may
have a person, or a small group of people deciding what goes in the
language and what doesn't, however, this differs in three manners:
1) The leaders are "elected" by the community -- this makes it
so there are signifigantly fewer power struggles (or dick size
wars to use a Zak term).
2) This small group usually consists of all the core developers,
not just two.
3) The leaders are not a commercial company.
The relationship between a commercial company and a group of open
source developers is a delicate thing, which requires work to
maintain and foster, the feeling in the community, that I am picking up
is that Zend has dropped the ball -- the licensing issues, and some
of the commercial products surrounding the Zend engine have created in
many a feeling of alienation, and that Zend is exploiting its position
as the creator of the Zend engine to corner the PHP market.
While this does not bode well for either side -- I don't think that
means the relationship cannot be repaired, however, I do think that
a couple of things do need to happen in order for the relationship
to continue with any level of civility.
1) The Zend Engine should be moved to a separate project,
outside of the exclusive control of Zend Technologies Ltd., under a
BSD (or some other, more friendly license, ie, Apache or MIT). The
PHP project should be able to have control of this engine with
the same, or greater voice than Zend..
2) The communication between Zend & PHP with relation to
internal Zend developments that effect the future of PHP should
be improved. PHP 3.1 is a perfect example of a breakdown in
3) (I think this'd be nice) Developments that Zend makes -- such
as the Zend optimizer -- that make technical sense to be
natively supported in the engine, should be added. A good
candidate for this would be the Zend Optimizer. Zend can still
make a business around PHP -- however it shouldn't be in forms
that detract from the average programmers ability to make use of
PHP (Zend IDE, Zend Debugger and Zend Launchpad are steps in the
right direction, imho).
Perhaps what I'm saying sounds a bit radical, but I do believe that
Zend & PHP can co-exist with some level of harmony, but changes do
need to me made, and communication needs to occur where people on
both sides listen to each others concerns.
"Any man is liable to error, but only a fool persists in error."
-Cicero (Since we're doing the whole latin thing :)
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]