On 07/08/2014 02:19 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:16:37PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents
>> derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you
>> feel like it).
>
> It's my reading t
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:16:37PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents
> derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you
> feel like it).
It's my reading that this is the case if you rename your project to not
co
On 07/07/2014 04:19 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
>>> Unless I'm mistaken, the wording in the PHP license makes it
>>> invalid for anybody that isn't actually the PHP project to use
>>> without making a fa
Unless its renamed AFAICT.
T
On Jul 7, 2014 4:19 AM, "The Wanderer" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >
> >> Unless I'm mistaken, the wording in the PHP license makes i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
>> Unless I'm mistaken, the wording in the PHP license makes it
>> invalid for anybody that isn't actually the PHP project to use
>> without making a false
On 06/26/2014 07:41 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> The initial conclusion came from debian-legal, and I think it's
> futile to discuss that with ftp-masters when I already done that.
> And as you can see in the initial conversation in the bug report
> I was against the removal, but in the end they have c
Hi,
while going through the list of (new) RC bugs claiming to affect wheezy, I
noticed a whole bunch of "$foo is licensed under the PHP license and is not
PHP" ones and am wondering if removal from stable is planned as well.
Is it?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a
Matthias Urlichs writes:
> (C) Bite the bullet and admit that when everybody else calls a color
> "light blue" which we consider to be "cyan", we might as well docuent
> that fact instead of trying to convince everybody else that they're
> wrong, even if they are, from our PoV. After
On 30/06/14 23:47, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> Unless I'm mistaken, the wording in the PHP license makes it invalid for
>> > anybody that isn't actually the PHP project to use without making a
>> > false claim that "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT
>> > TEAM".
> The fact that ~nobody els
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 10:17, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> (C) Bite the bullet and admit that when everybody else calls a color
> "light blue" which we consider to be "cyan", we might as well docuent
> that fact instead of trying to convince everybody else that they're
> wrong, even if th
Hi,
Clint Byrum:
> That's quite the opposite of what I would suggest. Such distributions
> may actually feel that they can withstand any damages that PHP/Zend can
> claim against them, and their brands depend on them taking care of their
> end users, but even if they didn't, they could also absorb
Hi,
Steve Langasek:
> And yes, there are PHP extensions that are not distributable in binary form
> because of this license. But relicensing *the extension* changes nothing
> about this, they are *still* not redistributable as part of Debian because
> they're linking GPL code into PHP which is an
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:45:07PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Steve Langasek's message of 2014-06-30 14:39:03 -0700:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:22PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700:
> > > > On Jun 26, Clint Byrum wrote:
On Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I
> > And which principles would be that, exactly?
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract
> Specifically, we won't hide problems and Debian will remain 100% free.
We would first need to acknow
Excerpts from Steve Langasek's message of 2014-06-30 14:39:03 -0700:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:22PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700:
> > > On Jun 26, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> > > > Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our pri
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:22PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700:
> > On Jun 26, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I
> > And which principles would be that, exactly?
> https://www.debi
On Monday, June 30, 2014 14:11:33 Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-30 13:43:59 -0700:
> > On Jun 30, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > > Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this
> > > discussion in public, please?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I am ready to explore
Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-30 14:18:15 -0700:
> On Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> > Ubuntu would follow suit I think. It would be too much of a burden to
> > carry all of that without Debian maintainer assistance.
> If manpower is a problem for them then I expect that they would keep a
Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700:
> On Jun 26, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> > Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I
> And which principles would be that, exactly?
>
https://www.debian.org/social_contract
Specifically, we won't hide problems and D
On Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Ubuntu would follow suit I think. It would be too much of a burden to
> carry all of that without Debian maintainer assistance.
If manpower is a problem for them then I expect that they would keep at
least the handful of critically important extensions, or they wo
Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-30 13:43:59 -0700:
> On Jun 30, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>
> > Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this discussion in
> > public, please?
> +1
>
> I am ready to explore every available option to make sure that the next
> release will no
On Jun 30, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this discussion in
> public, please?
+1
I am ready to explore every available option to make sure that the next
release will not be useless for my customers (hence forcing me to
install/migrate hundr
On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is
suitable only for software that comes directly from "PHP Group",
that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself.
This issue reached Planet
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 14:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > If your disagreement with the FTP team is unresolvable, and if you have
> > time, maybe you can try to open a ticket for a resolution by the Technical
> > Com
Hi,
Chris Bannister:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems
> > the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to
> > work tomorrow, and for roughly the same reasons.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:43:16PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems
> > the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to
> > work
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems
> the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to
> work tomorrow, and for roughly the same reasons.
Because there is nothing you
On Jun 26, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I
And which principles would be that, exactly?
> If anyone has a better way to safeguard those to whom we distribute
> software, please do speak up about it.
I suggest mimicking distributions that
Hi,
Clint Byrum:
> Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles.
I am not arguing against our principles. I am arguing against a panicked
"let's RC-bug half of our PHP infrastructure (and drop it from $NEXTSTABLE
because the situation won't be resolved until the release)" res
Excerpts from Matthias Urlichs's message of 2014-06-26 11:17:04 -0700:
> Hi,
>
> Steve Langasek:
> > Ah good, argumentum ad populum, I was getting sick of Debian having
> > principles anyway.
> >
> The point is that absolutely nobody else seems to be interested in this
> strange licensing situati
Hi,
Steve Langasek:
> Ah good, argumentum ad populum, I was getting sick of Debian having
> principles anyway.
>
The point is that absolutely nobody else seems to be interested in this
strange licensing situation. Debian itself had the "problem" for YEARS and
nobody noticed.
Thus, reality check
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 07:26:05PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 26, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I have no objection to the ftp team's decision to treat this as an automatic
> > reject on this basis - I don't think a license that requires us to make
> > false statements is suitable for main -
Steve,
I did hand checked all copyright files in question and while php-imlib might
have slipped me, I am quite sure that your claim about "lot of these" is false,
since php-imlib is not the only package under dual licensing I have seen.
I do apologize for filling bug against php-imlib though.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:36:18PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's
> >some more background on the bugs filled.
> >I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
> >and our conc
On Jun 26, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have no objection to the ftp team's decision to treat this as an automatic
> reject on this basis - I don't think a license that requires us to make
> false statements is suitable for main - but it's wrong to claim that these
> works are undistributable.
Reali
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:27:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I have discussed this with ftp-masters and release team before
> > filling the bugs, arguing heavily in disagreement with ftp-master's
> > REJECT FAQ - the PHP License REJECT is there since 2005.
> Hi Ondrej,
> sorry for not havi
Hi Charles,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 14:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If your disagreement with the FTP team is unresolvable, and if you have
> time, maybe you can try to open a ticket for a resolution by the Technical
> Comittee ?
I don't think that falls under tech-ctte jurisdiction under Chapte
Le Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:53:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:36, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > > I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's
> > > some more background on the bugs filled.
> > >
> > > I d
Hi Ondřej
On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:56:34 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:56, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:52, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Hi Ondřej,
>
> On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> > I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:00:12PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> 3. We remove the source packages from Debian.
Can you kindly explain why? Is the PHP license is non-free? If so,
why? If not - let's lower the bugs severity.
I see only *one* reply from debian-legal here:
https://lists.debian.org/d
On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's
some more background on the bugs filled.
I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is
suitable only for software that c
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:52, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Hi Ondřej,
>
> On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> > I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
> > and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is
> > suitable only for software that comes direct
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:56, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:52, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> > Hi Ondřej,
> >
> > On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >
> > > I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
> > > and our conclusion was that PHP License
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:36, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's
> > some more background on the bugs filled.
> >
> > I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
> > and our conclus
Hi Ondřej,
On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is
suitable only for software that comes directly from "PHP Group",
that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:09, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 26 June 2014 12:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's
> > some more background on the bugs filled.
> >
> > I did have a quite long and extensive chat w
On 26 June 2014 12:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's
> some more background on the bugs filled.
>
> I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
> and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is
>
Hi everyone,
I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's
some more background on the bugs filled.
I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is
suitable only for software that comes directly from "PHP Gr
48 matches
Mail list logo
