On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:46:50 +0100 Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:03:38AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > >Not really, in my opinion. > >I think it's a valid rejection reason for anything that is not the > >reference PHP implementation published and copyrighted by the PHP Group. > > > >Personally, I consider the PHP License non-free even for PHP itself, > >but that's another story: > >https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html > > Just to clarify, since Paul may not be accustomed with Debian's > structure or your involvement: this is your opinion
Sure, that's why I said "personally". I also added "but that's another story", meaning that my side-note talked about a fact that will probably have *no* effect on Debian decision-making process. > but you're not a > member of the Debian project True: I could have said that more explicitly, even though I have never claimed otherwise. I apologize if the lack of explicit clarification caused any confusion about this. > and you're certainly not the decision maker > for DFSG-freeness. Once again true: I just pointed out a well known rejection reason that, *in my own personal opinion*, could apply to the present case. > > The maintainer (and, possibly, sponsoring Debian Developer) is the first > line of defense, and ultimately the decision is up to the ftp-master > team[...] as part of the power of processing the NEW queue and accepting > packages into Debian, a power that is delegated from the project leader. That's my understanding of Debian procedures, too. > > PHP is in the archive and is licensed under the PHP License to my > knowledge, so the current ftp-masters' stance is that it's a perfectly > acceptable license for inclusion into Debian. Yes, ftp-masters clearly think that the reference PHP implementation copyrighted by the PHP Group is acceptable for Debian main. I personally disagree, but, as I said, that's another story... > > There is zero evidence suggesting that HHVM is not going to be accepted > in Debian for the licensing reasons that you stated and there is, in > fact, evidence to the contrary. Please avoid suggesting so -or if you > do, explain that you're not part of the decision process- and possibly > frightening perfectly good upstreams, or asking them to do more work, > especially when they've proved themselves to be very willing to > collaborate with us. I am not sure I agree with you on this. In my *own personal* opinion, there's a possibility that something which is not the reference implementation of the PHP language (the implementation developed and copyrighted by the PHP Group) could be rejected, if licensed under the terms of the PHP License. It's true that the cited reject FAQ talks about "PHP add-on packages", but then explains that the problem is that "this license talks only about PHP, the PHP Group, and includes Zend Engine, so its not applicable to anything else". See again https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Hence, I expressed my concern about this *possible* rejection reason. That fact that the parts licensed under the terms of the PHP License are derived from PHP itself may mitigate the issue or even eliminate it, from the ftp-masters' point of view. But please note that this fact surfaced *after* I had expressed my concern. Frankly speaking, I don't see any clear evidence that this issue is non-existent. I was concerned about it, so I thought I could warn people upfront and see whether it could be (more or less easily) solved or worked around. Once again, I apologize if anything I said was not crystal clear and generated any confusion. I reiterate my gratitude to the friendly and helpful upstream developers. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpMr3EJXQKNO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
