On 30/07/14 21:07, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > 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.
I agree that this would violate DFSG#3. However, I'm not convinced that the PHP license is only valid if the software is distributed under *.php.net. Nowhere within the license does it say that the program being licensed is PHP software, so the PHP Group's definition of PHP software is irrelevant. > 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. Good point. (I think you're referring to section 4; correct me if I'm wrong.) This would make PHP-licensed software *with PHP in the title* non-free until rebranded, like firefox was until rebranded to iceweasel. This would not, however, make the license non-free, it would just make for some annoying rebranding, which should be much more manageable. -- 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/53d8d73e.2010...@bitmessage.ch
