On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 12:15 15-08-01, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> >On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > At 10:23 15-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > > >[Hi,
> > > >
> > > >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.
> Sterling, that's bull - popular perhaps - but still, bull. Zend as a
> commercial entity doesn't decide on PHP's features. Nobody in Zend has
> control over the language just because he's a Zend employee. Other Zend
> employees participate in the discussions just like the rest of you, and
> often make quite constructive remarks, just like the rest. However, it's
> not as if Zend employees can muck around the language, whereas php-dev can
> just stand on the side watching.
> We all like to look up at corporations, blame them for the problems and
> rebel. It's basic human nature. It just has very little to do with
> reality in this case. Nothing, in practice, except for that license
> everybody enjoys bashing (and I claim again and again, that it won't make a
> radical change if it changes, except for perception).
> Andi and myself regulate the engine, on a personal basis, since 1997, and
> it has nothing to do with Zend (which was founded towards the end of
> 1999). Between us, as a commercial entity, nobody could care less whether
> there are advices, namespaces or how exactly the object model would look
> like. That's why the situation wouldn't change radically if/when the
> engine license changes, much like it wasn't any different *before* the
> engine license was even introduced, in the PHP 3.0 days. Having regulators
> over the 'kernel' of the project is certainly not very unique to the PHP,
> and had a significant role in bringing PHP to where it is today, and not
> where Perl is today, for example.
Ohhhhh - I see! So the "Zend" on the License is really just shorthand for
"Zeev and Andi", has nothing to do with Zend Technologies Ltd. Good
to know. ;))
As I said -- this may have no basis in practicality -- I think it
does to some extent, otherwise you wouldn't hear this many
reasonable (but sometimes passionate) people complaining. Still,
taking your assumption that the license and Zend's control of it is
meaningless, why not go ahead and change the license today? If it
means nothing, why are you with a license that causes such strife in
the PHP community? If you'd like, I'll go setup a sourceforge project for
the Zend engine today!
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]