Le Mer 24 Août 2005 06:25, Ian Eure a écrit : > I do think the license should be fixed (or a more appropriate > derivative created for PEAR packages), but I don't think the license > in any way prohibits Debian packaging of PEAR or PEAR packages; nor > has it stopped such packaging in the past. See: php-pear-log, php-db, > php-auth, php-net-socket, etc etc etc.
just for the record, it's not because it has been done, that it has been done *right*. Though, I find your interpretation of the clause (6) a bit light. You would be correct if it was worded : 6. Redistributions of any form ***OF THE PHP SOURCES/SOFTWARE*** whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from <http://www.php.net/>". but without the part in ***...***, semantically, "Redistributions of any form" refers to the package that is under that license, not only PHP. I mean your point is invalid, since an annotated version of that clause is : 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: ... » If your redistribute the PEAR (or else) package released under » that license, you have to state that .... ... "This product includes PHP, freely available from <http://www.php.net/>". » ... this package include PHP (blah blah blah). Which would be » incorrect if PHP sources weren't bundled to the package. I assume » you should'nt sate sth wrong just for beeing license-clean ;) I understand *you* won't retain such a fallacious argument to harm debian, though, which is important is not only *how* an upstream understand/apply/... its own license, but what is written inside it, and what it means objectively. And I'm not comfortable with (6) because it misses the fact that clause 6 is *only* dedicated to the redistribution of PHP under any form (and not to the current package). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpoBbK8ZvuHX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
