On Wed, 22 May 2024 23:13:13 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote: [...] > I’ve updated the RFC according to your suggestions.
Good! :-) Thanks for taking the time to do so. > You may find a diff of the changes here: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716433712&rev2%5B1%5D=1716437291&difftype=sidebyside > > > Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes. After a short review, they look OK to me. The only thing that I would emphasize more is: the PHP License, version 4.0 should not just have the text identical to the 3-clause BSD license, it should *be* the 3-clause BSD license. In other words, the PHP Group would not merely publish a new license with a text identical to the text of another license: the PHP Group would *designate*[^NOTE] the 3-clause BSD license as the new version of the PHP License (i.e.: version 4.0). [^NOTE]: or *elect*, or *adopt*, the most suitable word should be chosen by an English native speaker (which I am not) with legal training (which I do not have)... I think that, this way, clause 5 of the PHP License, version 3.01, would be triggered, but there would be no need to explicitly mention "PHP License, version 4.0" in the source code of a project that decides to upgrade its license (from PHP License, version 3.01 to its successor, the 3-clause BSD license). The reason would that "PHP License, version 4.0" would become an alias of "3-clause BSD license"... Similarly for the Zend License, of course. This is how I see it, but, clearly, it has to be checked with someone more knowledgeable than me about the legal aspects. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp2YhtpMKSg8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
