On 2009-04-17, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
(And I was also under the impression that Debian follows the wishes of the
copyright holder, so it doesn't matter if this argument has any legal merit,
just that the FSF makes it.)
Note that there's no FSF copyright code in the
* Olly Betts:
It's possible this FAQ entry may not have been updated for GPLv3 - I
notice that it talks about PHP4, which is obsolete now, and PHP5 predates
GPLv3.
Yes, I think this may be the case.
I guess Florian's thinking is based on additional restrictions allowed
by GPLv3 7c:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:52:35 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Olly Betts:
It's possible this FAQ entry may not have been updated for GPLv3 - I
notice that it talks about PHP4, which is obsolete now, and PHP5 predates
GPLv3.
Yes, I think this may be the case.
The same page extensively
In message pine.lnx.4.44.0904171144360.27732-100...@violet.rahul.net,
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net writes
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also
illegal if you
just distribute the other program and have the user do the link.
HOW? I hope the FSF
Olly Betts o...@survex.com wrote:
For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
Will you summarise/link or should we cc?
[...]
Steve Langasek:
There are several other PHP extensions in circulation that use GPLed
libraries, some of them distributed with the PHP source itself. (The
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only
happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK.
I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
link a program with GPL software and distribute that,
In message pine.lnx.4.44.0904170825550.19077-100...@violet.rahul.net,
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net writes
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only
happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK.
I was under
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also illegal if
you
just distribute the other program and have the user do the link.
HOW? I hope the FSF doesn't
* Olly Betts:
To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for
PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5.
The PHP license is fine if you use Xapian under the GPLv3. The
remaining problem is the Zend license, which contains an advertizing
clause. For historical/political reasons, the FSF
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:09:57 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Olly Betts:
To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for
PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5.
The PHP license is fine if you use Xapian under the GPLv3.
The FSF seems to disagree: quoting from
On 2009-04-17, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:09:57 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Olly Betts:
To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for
PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5.
The PHP license is fine if you use Xapian under the GPLv3.
On 2009-04-17, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Olly Betts o...@survex.com wrote:
For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
Will you summarise/link or should we cc?
Good question. Since I didn't Cc: the start of the thread, I'll update
the bug with a link to this thread, and summarise the
Hi,
For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for
PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5. The two licences are regarded as incompatible
due to the restriction on names containing PHP in clause 4 of the PHP
licence. The build process doesn't
14 matches
Mail list logo
