So far: no response.
Has anyone else had any luck getting info from them?
andrew
On 11/10/05, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll put any response on-list.
>
> Also, yes, I have seen GPL Violations. I will contact them if finjan
> doesn't respond.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 11/10/05, Arnou
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:05:37 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> I'll quote it entirely for future reference.
My comments follow.
>
>
> The PHP License, version 3.01
> Copyright (c) 1999 - 2005 The PHP Group. All rights reserv
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:37:10 + MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> For now, I stand by my view: PHP under this licence follows
> the DFSG, but it's inappropriate for software other than PHP
> itself, including much of PEAR.
I don't agree.
It seems that the PHP license still suffers from the issues that wer
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * MJ Ray:
>
> > 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
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * MJ Ray:
>
>> 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
> derivat
* MJ Ray:
> 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. Then it wouldn't be lying, would it?
Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> They are minor but required and enough to fix the legal problems.
> This license is now suitable for other software than php.
> I'm no lawyer, I only ask some I know and got an OK.
I'm not sure whether making people lie is a legal problem,
but I feel it's wrong. That's
Scripsit Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> They are minor but required and enough to fix the legal problems.
> This license is now suitable for other software than php.
I disagree. It still requires that non-PHP software lie about its
content:
| 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain t
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:40:00 +
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pierre wrote:
> > Rasmus just commited the PHP License 3.01
> > http://cvs.php.net/co.php/php-src/LICENSE?r=1.24
> > I think the problems are solved in this new version.
> >
> > Please review it and let us know that everything is fine
Pierre wrote:
> Rasmus just commited the PHP License 3.01
> http://cvs.php.net/co.php/php-src/LICENSE?r=1.24
> I think the problems are solved in this new version.
>
> Please review it and let us know that everything is fine. It was a pain
> to get that changed but it is done.
[Cc'd to Pierre beca
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enrice Zini suggested more elegant system on:
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/2005-November/001029.html
This is better, but misses quite a few common cases. OTTOMH, there are
also restrictions on distributing adapted versions, making private
changes, ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
