About php3 licensing issue.
Hi , I have orphaned three php package and it has php 3.0 license. Is there any licensing issue with php 3 or should i go ahead. Please read the following thread and let me know . http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/09/msg00446.html PS : please CC to me i haven't subscribe. -- Jai Hind Deepak Tripathi E3 71V3 8Y C063 (We Live By Code) http://deepkatripathi.blogspot.com
Re: About php3 licensing issue.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:42:34 + Deepak Tripathi wrote: Hi , I have orphaned three php package and it has php 3.0 license. Mmmh, maybe you mean that you have *prepared* three packages... Is there any licensing issue with php 3 or should i go ahead. It seems that php-apc is licensed under the terms of the PHP License version 3.01. This license is definitely unacceptable for anything other than PHP itself (or, at best, software by the PHP Group). Hence, if php-apc cannot be considered part of PHP itself (or software written by the PHP Group), I think it will get rejected by ftp-masters, see the reject FAQ [1]. [1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Moreover, I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01), fails to meet the DFSG even for PHP itself. This is my own opinion and was stated several times on debian-legal, but other people seem to disagree and/or don't seem to care much. See my analysis [2] of the license for the gory details. [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html I would suggest that you try and persuade upstream to relicense under a widely-accepted license (such as the Expat/MIT license [3]). [3] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. [...] PS : please CC to me i haven't subscribe. Done. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgprHgZOtwkmi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenJDK draft trademark license
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:02:52 -0700 Mark Reinhold wrote: Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:15:17 +0200 From: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:06:42 -0700 Mark Reinhold wrote: If you're content with security fixes being discussed in the FAQ then I'd like to leave the text of the notice as-is. I would personally prefer seeing this kind of issues clarified in the trademark license text, rather than in a FAQ... [...] We've generally found that leaving interpretive questions such as this to a related FAQ makes for licenses that are clearer and simpler in the long run. As long as the license is clear enough and the FAQ is there just to explain things to people who are not used to analyzing licenses, I can agree. But I don't think that this is the case, here. That was, e.g., our experience with the Distribution License for Java (DLJ) [1,2]. That was exactly one of the features I disliked in the DLJ. See, for instance: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00274.html As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. P.S.: please do not Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop: I didn't ask to be Cc:ed. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp5b5aveLxnj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#460591: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)
MJ Ray wrote: Giancarlo Niccolai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Anyway, this is the show-stopper. Contaminates other software. DFSG 9. It's the parts of FPL sections 1, 2 and 5 about Scripts. Clear enough? Yes, your position is now clear, thanks. Yet, I can't see why you say it contaminates more software. The license just applies to software that uses Falcon; scripts (falcon scripts) do it and embedding applications do it; of course, also derivative work do it. I can't see why requiring for them to be closed source and putting a notice or open source with FPLL or with another compatible open source license (as GPL or LGPL) would be more infringing than i.e. GPL itself. The licence for Falcon (this software) is effectively asserting that it can restrict the scripts (which is some other software). I can't see why you think that doesn't contaminate other software, the scripts. To be free software, the licence for Falcon must not apply to software that uses Falcon *except* when it is embedded into or extending Falcon in certain ways. I'm not even sure that Falcon's licence *can* restrict the scripts it loads, because:- The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone. Source: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL I buy 100% your point; I understand I misused the term script to intend an application made of Falcon and other things on one side and the grammar that made up the scripts on the other. In the new version of the license I have prepared, this is clarified as the only thing covered by copyright/left are the things that are licensed with FPLL (the engine and the modules we/others want to release that way). The term Applications of the work is now solely the engine in the act of *running* things, and it's made clear that this definition does not include the *things* you run. Sorry for the former wordings that wasn't what I wanted it to be. Moreover, the term publicly perform in the copyleft grants anyone the right to run applications of Falcon the way it likes. So, in accordance to the above statement: 1) Data (scripts) is free from copyright/left. 2) you can run the copylefted thing on any data, any way you like. Please, notice that this is more than what GPL actually allows, as GPL states also that portions of generated code that are coming from the application (i.e. bytecode middle layers) are covered by GPL; that's the reason for exceptions in GNU compilers. FPLL frees them (pre-compiled scripts) too. That was one of the things that required me to write FPLL: some of my target markets are quite sensible to this aspect, and FPLL clears the grey area of compiled scripts. I'll also reshape a bit the commentary to better specify this fact, and make cross link so that they are always accessible together. In the meanwhile we're finishing the setup for dual licensing with GPL in our new version, so it will be clear under every aspect that Lo, this is Free Software! :-) Thank you for your help, Giancarlo Niccolai. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
