Control: retitle -1 ITP: php-doc -- Documentation for PHP Control: owner -1 ! X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, ond...@debian.org, taf...@debian.org, kap...@debian.org
* Package name : php-doc Version : 20220919~git.2aee619 Upstream Author : The PHP Documentation Group * URL : http://docs.php.net/manual/en/ * License : CC-BY-3.0 and Expat and BSD-2-Clause and PHP-3.01 and PHP-3.0 Description : Documentation for PHP I have prepared an initial update at https://salsa.debian.org/athos/php-doc The idea here would be to maintain the package under the PHP team umbrella. As mentioned in the original report (RFP), this package was originally removed from the archive due to Bug #821695, when it was not updated during the PHP 7 transition. Since then a few lincesing discussions happened regarding the PHP license. Some of these discussions were around the feasibility of shipping software licensed under the PHP license, which resulted in the following lintian warning: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/license-problem-php-license, and the following notice: https://ftp-master.debian.org/php-license.html Note that while the first mentions PHP-3.0 ("exactly"), the latter only mentions PHP-3.01. Here, it seems that the first is just outdated and should be updated to day PHP-3.01. Now, I wonder if it is feasible to introduce this specific package back in Debian, given its source includes PHP-3.0 licensed files. In a quick search through the archive, I could only find 2 packages including the PHP-3.0 license, php itself and civicrm. Do we refrain from shipping PHP-3.0 licensed software other than PHP itself due to the working of the PHP-3.0 license? If so, should that also apply for the php documentation as well? Regarding the lintian warning (license-problem-php-license), I am overriding it ATM. While the sources come from github, they are clearly from the PHP Group itself and links to the sources are available at php.net ATM. Thoughs? Finally, I filed https://github.com/php/doc-base/issues/69 to verify the feasibility of re-licensing such scripts upstream. I am Ccing Ondrej and David since they most likely have opinions and more context in the matter. -- Athos Ribeiro
