On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Christopher Jones < christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > On 15/6/17 10:34 pm, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > >> On Do, 2017-06-15 at 11:06 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Remi Collet <r...@fedoraproject.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> All extensions in php-src are PHP 3.01 Licensed >>>> (libs may, of course, have different license) >>>> >>>> Is there any strong rule about this ? >>>> Or is it OK to have a BSD Licensed extension ? >>>> >>>> Context: see sodium PR >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github. >>>> com_php_php-2Dsrc_pull_2560&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8P >>>> QcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=lLpUdeB4xTiOOWD6yGzxPFv2SHvPzg3yLT7 >>>> kvD-ZfyU&m=GT6MkgICJHeF19FAbAaTtuH4St0KJibc9P1oLj7395Y&s=VGZ >>>> gqeH18gkOkITtpv0ZRNfFvmlvCHdsjJ13Zu2yIv4&e= >>>> >>>> >>>> IMHO, make sense to have only PHP Licensed ext. >>>> >>>> I think we should allow BSD/MIT licenses, as they are compatible with >>> and >>> less restrictive than the PHP license. TBH, the PHP license seems >>> somewhat >>> dubious when applied to extensions, as most of the additional clauses >>> are >>> simply not applicable (extensions do not bundle the Zend Engine and >>> extensions have no control over the PHP group or the PHP name). >>> >>> > What about the Apache 2 license? > > I'd like to be able to include the ODPI-C library code [1] in PDO_OCI > and/or OCI8. > It is being used for Python cx_Oracle [2] and Node.js node-oracledb [3]. > ODPI-C is under a dual license, one of which is Apache 2. > > Mind: The PHP License[1] doesn't talk about the Zend engine, but "PHP >> Software", "PHP Software" is, since PHP License 3.01 compared to PHP >> License 3.0 defined as PEAR, PECL and PHP on [2] >> >> The "this software includes the ZendEngine" thing in the PHP >> distribution's license file[3] is not part of the PHP License, but a >> requirement for the PHP product, which includes the Zend Engine >> product, which is licensed under the Zend Engine License[4]. >> >> According to the most legal interpretations I know (IANAL ... ask two >> lawyers, get three answers ...) a BSD-licensed extension bundled in PHP >> would be relicensed under PHP license "automatically" when being >> distributed as part of the PHP product. >> > > IANAL-too, and haven't talked to one about this - but will one day. > > I however think it makes sense to license all bundled extensions as PHP >> license with copyright PHP Group as this simplifies moving code around >> (i.e. if a BSD licensed extension contains some nice macro which might >> be useful to put into main/ this is simpler from a stricter legal pov >> if it's the same license) >> > > True. > > Chris > > [1] https://github.com/oracle/odpi > [2] https://github.com/oracle/python-cx_Oracle > [3] https://github.com/oracle/node-oracledb/tree/dev-2.0 > >> >> johannes >> >> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__php.net_ >> license_3-5F01.txt&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5Y >> TpkKY057SbK10&r=lLpUdeB4xTiOOWD6yGzxPFv2SHvPzg3yLT7kvD-ZfyU& >> m=GT6MkgICJHeF19FAbAaTtuH4St0KJibc9P1oLj7395Y&s=7x6vjEasY6oe >> 1GzH9OXDBE3pXyveWOz8ls3sXtwy1vw&e= >> [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__php.net_ >> software.php&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY0 >> 57SbK10&r=lLpUdeB4xTiOOWD6yGzxPFv2SHvPzg3yLT7kvD-ZfyU&m=GT6M >> kgICJHeF19FAbAaTtuH4St0KJibc9P1oLj7395Y&s=g1dWNiQpuE2RR-lswQ >> mJXYYD_zwkAzYd1bVVRLXOVBw&e= >> [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.php. >> net_-3Fp-3Dphp-2Dsrc.git-3Ba-3Dblob-3Bf-3DLICENSE-3Bh-3D9964 >> e0737cc9be&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057 >> SbK10&r=lLpUdeB4xTiOOWD6yGzxPFv2SHvPzg3yLT7kvD-ZfyU&m=GT6Mkg >> ICJHeF19FAbAaTtuH4St0KJibc9P1oLj7395Y&s=ZUqrUXKbNqC3ECQzQRCh >> 6wTF8HWoWt18RInPHAMHcQM&e= >> 0521b056be697a5fbeb14d01ef;hb=refs/heads/master >> [4] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.php. >> net_-3Fp-3Dphp-2Dsrc.git-3Ba-3Dblob-3Bf-3DZend_LICENSE-3Bh-3 >> D8acb9af4f&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057 >> SbK10&r=lLpUdeB4xTiOOWD6yGzxPFv2SHvPzg3yLT7kvD-ZfyU&m=GT6Mkg >> ICJHeF19FAbAaTtuH4St0KJibc9P1oLj7395Y&s=3J0pO0pb7tkfrqMlrZea >> J729znnn2I8lQqGW_lIt51I&e= >> 8a589076f305c31501565a2cfe0f6ff;hb=refs/heads/master >> >> > -- > http://twitter.com/ghrd > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Hi all, Towards the end (currently, anyway) of the pull request discussion, a possible resolution emerges for ext/sodium: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/2560#issuecomment-312452732 I've never dealt with licensing issues before, so I'm not sure what the process is myself. However, feel free to treat my contributions as CC0/WTFPL/Unlicense so that everyone can freely just relicense my contributions as whatever license without complication. You don't even need me to sign off on it. Just, have at it. Would it make sense to post an issue on the libsodium-php Github to ask the contributors if they consent to a relicense? Or should we track them down and email them individually? This is new territory for me, so I apologize if anything I said sounds stupid. Regards, Scott Arciszewski Chief Development Officer Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com/>
