debian-legal isn't the body that makes this decision, you might want ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org
Thanks, Paul On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM, James Wade <jpsw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> There seems to be some confusion over the PHP License. >> >> We had this bug report into a PEAR project which outlines that Debian >> cannot include any projects that fall under the PHP License. >> >> * https://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=20172 >> >> You will find details of the reason behind it here: >> >> * https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html >> >> You have a PHP add-on package (any php script/"app"/thing, not PHP >> itself) and it's licensed only under the standard PHP license. That >> license, up to the 3.x which is actually out, is not really usable >> for anything else than PHP itself. I've mailed our -legal list about >> that and got only one response, which basically supported my view on >> this. Basically this license talks only about PHP, the PHP Group, >> and includes Zend Engine, so its not applicable to anything else. >> And even worse, older versions include the nice ad-clause. >> One good solution here is to suggest a license change to your >> upstream, as they clearly wanted a free one. LGPL or BSD seems to be >> what they want >> >> After a quick search, I quickly found that this isn't an isolated case... >> >> * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728196 >> * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752530 >> * http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=20316 >> * >> https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-rc@lists.debian.org/msg362847.html >> * https://github.com/nicolasff/phpredis/issues/384 >> >> Judging by the email to legal sent almost a decade ago this situation is >> in need of a review... >> >> * https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html >> >> I can't understand this line of thought in this context: >> >> GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with >> the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a >> much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as >> popular as possible. >> - http://php.net/license/ >> >> I also read that Rasmus Lerdorf issued a statement which said that the PHP >> license is pretty much identical to the Apache license. >> >> * http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.devs.php >> >> I've also discovered that this is not the first instance that this issue >> has been discussed: >> >> * http://lwn.net/Articles/604630/ >> >> All this has raised some questions: >> >> 1. Is 'The PHP License, version 3.01' an Open Source license, certified by >> the Open Source Initiative? Their website only lists 'PHP License 3.0 >> (PHP-3.0)'. >> 2. When was 'The PHP License, version 3.01' released? >> 3. Can 'The PHP License, version 3.01' be used for anything other than PHP >> itself? >> 4. Are there any legal implications of changing a project from 'The PHP >> License, version 3.01' to LGPL or BSD? >> 5. Is the PHP license clear enough to ensure that it is correctly applied >> to extensions? >> 6. Why would the (Apache-style) PHP License be listed by Debian as a >> 'serious violation' yet the Apache license is not? >> >> Thanks. >> > > Hi, > > please see the thread at > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.pecl.devel/11046 and if you want to > reply I think pecl-dev@ is a better place than php-qa@ > Most of your links are old and some of the previous problems claimed by > debian was addressed with php license version 3.01. > from the replies on the debian mailing lists it seems that this decision on > dropping any project using the php license distributed outside of php-src is > controversial to say the least. > I've tried to start a discussion to find some kind of resolution, but most > of the replies from php-dev side was that the current license is fine, and > we don't need to change anything, while we didn't got any reply from the > debian-legal (apart from the mail from Francesco Poli who explicitly stated > that not part of the debian project and not speaking on behalf of it). > > Based on the lack of clarification and cooperation from their side, I think > the consensus on our part will be to keep everything as-is, and at the end > of the day, it is up to the package maintainer to decide if they take the > advice from the debian package maintainers and change the license for their > project. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cao6p2qscni8ha54jmd6rqs7uox9xaljugj0+smqtjnputkd...@mail.gmail.com
