On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:16:54 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem
that has been neglected in recent
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND
is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team.
Agreed; this license is still not
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS''
AND is also wrong for anything which
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem
that has been neglected in recent discussions:
| 3. The name PHP must not be used to endorse or
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:16:54PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
| 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]
The usual no-endorsement clause that
On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote:
What the?
andrew
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:24:08PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP.
No, it isn't. The current point 6 is:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from
On 10562 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP.
No, it isn't. The current point 6 is:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND
is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team.
Agreed; this license is still not suitable for software that doesn't come
from the PHP Group.
Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP.
No, it isn't. The current point 6 is:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from
http://www.php.net/software/.
It does not say
Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License
is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This
claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter
at debian-legal.
So lets look at that license, not only for allow php group
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:20:21 -0500 Charles Fry wrote:
Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP
License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group
software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic
discussion on the matter at debian-legal.
On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote:
Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License
is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This
claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter
at debian-legal.
So lets look at that
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:46:21 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, I'm still not happy about the don't use the PHP name clause,
but we seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment.
So for packages that have the PHP Group as their upstream, I think
it's reasonable to close the
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:46:21 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, I'm still not happy about the don't use the PHP name clause,
but we seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment.
So for packages that have the
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:11:43 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0?
The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright
shows some pieces that still use the old
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds like Since we have ignored this issue in the past, we must
go on forever ignoring it, even though it *is* a DFSG-freeness issue
No, this sounds like since so far everybody but the law.kooks agreed
that this is DFSG-free it's wrong to change our interpretation
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 03:16:38 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
This sounds like Since we have ignored this issue in the past, we
must go on forever ignoring it, even though it *is* a DFSG-freeness
issue
No, it's throwing
-Original Message-
From: José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:27:53 -0200
To: Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org,
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, Charles Fry wrote:
Instead I propose that all RC bugs in PHP Group software released
with the PHP License be closed.
For the record, all previous discussions of this matter on
debian-legal have suggested that the PHP License might be non-free
for everything (including
(Why is this being CC'd to d-d?)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
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] [...]
For example, I should be
On Feb 03, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This clause has been examined carefully in the past and deemed ugly
but not non-free (at least, with no serious objections)--at least in
the Apache, etc. cases. However, I don't think that should be extended
to the general case; nor may 'net'
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(Why is this being CC'd to d-d?)
I set the MFT to go to -legal only in my response, so I've no clue why
you sent it to -devel again.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
4. Products derived from this software may not be
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:07:34 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:05:03 -0500 Charles Fry wrote:
[...]
Please help persuading the PHP Group to fix the license once and for
all (at least for PHP itself and other PHP
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:59:05 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't know if it's a battle worth fighting now. Like patch clauses,
there are so few of them that it's probably not that big a battle, but
if you do want to fight that fight, I don't think PHP is any worse
than Apache, so the objection
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0?
The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright
shows some pieces that still use the old one. I havn't looked to see
how much.
If this is case, the
On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0?
The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright
shows some pieces that still use the old one. I
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:00:55PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
Instead I propose that all RC bugs in PHP Group software released with
the PHP License be closed.
For the record, all previous discussions of this matter on debian-legal
have suggested that the PHP License might be non-free for
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:32:25PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
That's a matter of perspective, of course--Subversion is more important
to me.
Ever heard of G/LAMP? (GNU/Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Python/Perl) PHP
has many millions of installations around the world, and is used by
admins
To clarify what I was saying, SVN isn't 'on the edge', but SVN
versions of software (e.g. running KDE 4 or something like that) are.
Also the name 'PHP' is short and that makes the problem worse (e.g.
the telegraph pole program).
andrew
On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat,
-legal.
Given the lack of disagreement on this issue, I would again like to
request that the FTP Masters update their policy to accept PHP Group
packages with the PHP License, in addition to PHP itself. Or in the
absense of a willingness to do so, please step forward so that we can
further
-Original Message-
From: Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PHP License for PHP Group packages
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:41:33 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
FTP Masters,
As you are well aware, the current REJECT-FAQ[1] forbids the use of the
PHP
the lack of disagreement on this issue, I would again like to
request that the FTP Masters update their policy to accept PHP Group
packages with the PHP License, in addition to PHP itself. Or in the
absense of a willingness to do so, please step forward so that we can
further this discussion
months of sporadic
discussion on the matter at debian-legal.
Given the lack of disagreement on this issue, I would again like to
request that the FTP Masters update their policy to accept PHP Group
packages with the PHP License, in addition to PHP itself. Or in the
absense of a willingness
with Pear packages as it is for PHP[5,6].
Given this new development, I would like to request that the FTP Masters
start accepting PHP Group packages licenced under the PHP License (at
least as long as the PHP License is still considered free enough for PHP
in Debian), or at least join the current
35 matches
Mail list logo
