Pierre Joye wrote: >As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly >valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes *all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistribution of derived works is only permitted from *.php.net which is clearly inaccep- table. This makes not just forking the software impossible but also dis- tribution of binaries made from modified sources, for example. On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not, in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but that distributing the original source alongside patches is okay (e.g. as 3.0 (quilt) source package). Since Debian isn't distributing source pak- kages, this does not help us. A written permission from gr...@php.net is not helpful either, because of DFSG#8. (In BSD ports, we also do not distribute binaries of PHP.) I think you should rethink your stance and the PHP licence on all of the issues listed. Similar issues arose from the Firefox trademark after all (and it would be fun if Debian distributed Icescriptinglanguage, instead of PHP, except for those affected). bye, //mirabilos -- 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/lrajm9$j5p$1...@ger.gmane.org
