* License : The Open Group Test Suite License
I'm not optimistic about this licence being DFSG-free.
Hi,
I was wondering if Debian-legal could offer any insight on this matter.
I searched the mailing list archives, and found no explicit discussion
of this license. The only
Hi,
I am working with other members of the Debian devlopment team to include
many of your fine PEAR packages in Debian. One recurring problem has
been consistently arising however, that we have had a hard time
addressing at the correct level, which is why I am contacting you about
it.
The
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] You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying Foo for PHP instead of calling it
PHP Foo or
Given that you and all others who have weighed in on this issue agree
that the license should be fixed, I invite the PEAR Group to now take
the initiative to address this issue in the manner that they find most
appropriate. :-)
We are working on this.
In an effort to ensure that this
It affects many packages. See also
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00491.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00238.html
and maybe coordinate fix efforts with Charles Fry.
This is the third time that this issue has made it into Debian Weekly
News (which
The one big thing that everyone in this thread has missed is that we are
trying to establish the utility of this licence to software explicitely
distributed by the PHP Group at php.net in Pear or Pecl.
The PHP License,
The one big thing that everyone in this thread has missed is that we are
trying to establish the utility of this licence to software explicitely
distributed by the PHP Group at php.net in Pear or Pecl.
Is all that software also written/copyrighted by the PHP Group?
It is only distributed
[Pierre, note the note for you at the bottom.]
That is not true. Read carefully the change in wording that they
introduced: This product includes PHP software, freely available from
http://www.php.net/software/, which would be absolutely true, even in
the distribution of a single package.
What I did is a review of the license.
While doing that, I pointed out all the issues I could find, for
completeness' sake.
I found three sets of issues: the ones that come up when
* the license is applied to PHP itself,
* the license is applied to other software distributed by the PHP
Maybe you missed my earlier reply to this thread, where I explain that
requiring that I say that what I'm distributing is available at some URL
really is forcing me to lie, if I've modified it. (I don't have a
strong feeling that it's non-free, just a poorly-written license.)
I noticed that,
-Original Message-
From: Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:38:36 -0500
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Mail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org,
Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe you
, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
Does anyone have any objections to my claims here? If not, then I will
request that new Pear packages using the PHP License be accepted, and
I'll close the current RC bugs against Pear
I am just trying to insist that if we accept this license as valid for
PHP, then I don't see how we can reject it for use by the Pear Group.
Does that part sound reasonable?
Nobody should be claiming that a license is free for the original
PHP, but not when anyone else uses it. We
Does anyone have any objections to my claims here? If not, then I will
request that new Pear packages using the PHP License be accepted, and
I'll close the current RC bugs against Pear packages licenced under
the PHP License if they upgrade to the most recent version.
[...]
Did you
to freely distribute the bulk of
the Pear projects.
cheers,
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Pierre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:01:08 +0100
To: Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL
Given this, I would like to once again suggest that the Pear Group
consider removing the PHP License from their list of accepted licenses.
As previously discussed, existing projects may take time to be
relicensed, but I see no reason to allow new Pear projects to use the
PHP License
I just wanted to make sure that all relevant RC bugs were aware of the
following debian-legal post by MJ Ray:
The PHP licence could be OK for any software which has PHP Group
contribution (regardless who is licensing later), but would require
lying about other software. So, it is
, assuming that they deal with Pear
packages, which I have not taken the time to verify. The PHP License
clearly remains unacceptable for all non-PHP Group software.
Charles
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00260.html
-Original Message-
From: Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED
FTP Masters,
As you are well aware, the current REJECT-FAQ[1] forbids the use of the
PHP License for anything except for PHP itself. In August I contacted
the Pear Group about this[2], to no immediate avail.
In October Joerg Jaspert opened a number of RC bugs with existing Debian
packages of
* Package name: php-net-imap
Version : 1.0.3
Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP
* License : php license
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html
snip
the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it
can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution.
Please read the message to debian-legal that I originally referenced. It
outlines recent
this discussion and deal professionally with the upstream
authors of the current RC bugs related to the PHP License.
cheers,
Charles
-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
-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
severity 332606 important
severity 332607 important
severity 332608 important
severity 332609 important
severity 332610 important
severity 332611 important
severity 332613 important
severity 332614 important
severity 332615 important
severity 332616 important
severity 332617 important
severity
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
As you may have read in the thread you're referring to (I don't know
which of them, as there are quite several), I don't agree.
I believe that PHP license version 3.01 does not comply
with the DFSG, even when applied to PHP itself or to PHP Group software.
The problematic clause is #4.
A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name.
Java is the name of an island and a natural language too.
I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way.
A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm)
language!
Java? is a
Hi,
Is there any legal reason why sharpmusique is not in Debian, given that
multiple .deb packages already exist?
Charles
--
Our fortune
Is your
Shaven face
It's our best
Advertising space
Burma-Shave
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1953/our_fortune
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Is there any legal reason why sharpmusique is not in Debian, given that
multiple .deb packages already exist?
If you're going to ask about a license (which is what I assume you are
doing), please include the license in question (unless it is in
/usr/share/common-licenses). In this case,
Can anyone comment on whether or not it is problematic for us to
distribute a tiny icon of Firefox's logo? The only thing I could find
is:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/buttons.html
which says Mozilla Firefox and the Firefox logo are trademarks of The
Mozilla Foundation. Usage
31 matches
Mail list logo
