> 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, but didn't reply since I agree that it is a minor issue.
The clause in question 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/>".
This clause does not claim that everything being distributed is
available at that URL, but rather that such software is included
(presumably the unmodified parts).
I do agree that this clause, and the license, are poorly written. Even
the Pear Group recognizes that. But so far noone has been able to get
PHP to change the PHP License any more than the few modifications which
started this thread.
Charles
--
Substitutes
Are like a girdle
They find some jobs
They just
Can't hurdle
Burma-Shave
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1953/substitutes
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
