Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:16:54 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem > > that has been neglected in recent

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:16:54PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > | 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products > > | derived from this software without prior written permission. For > > | written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The usual no-endorsement c

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem > that has been neglected in recent discussions: > | 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or p

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' > > > > AND " is also wrong for any

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND " > > > is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team. > > Agreed; this license is

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:20:21 -0500 Charles Fry wrote: > > > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP > > > License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group > > > software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic > > > discussion on the matter at debia

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

> > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License > > is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This > > claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter > > at debian-legal. > > So lets look at that license, not only for "allow

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

> >> Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. > > No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: > > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following > > acknowledgment: > > "This product includes PHP software, freely available from > > ". > >

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND " > > is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team. > > Agreed; this license is still not suitable for software that doesn't come > from the PHP Gro

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On 10562 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. > No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following > acknowledgment: > "This product includes PHP software, freely available from >

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:24:08PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP software, freely available from

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

>On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote: What the? andrew

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote: > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License > is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This > claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter > at debian-legal. So lets look at that

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 03:16:38 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > This sounds like "Since we have ignored this issue in the past, we > > must go on forever ignoring it, even though it *is* a DFSG-freeness > > issue" > > No, it's "t

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This sounds like "Since we have ignored this issue in the past, we must >go on forever ignoring it, even though it *is* a DFSG-freeness issue" No, this sounds like "since so far everybody but the law.kooks agreed that this is DFSG-free it's wrong to change our interpretat

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:11:43 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0? > > The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright > shows some pieces that still use the ol

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

> While we are at fixing the PHP license for PHP Group software, we > should try and fix the additional issues that appear as soon as > someone applies the PHP license to software that is not PHP itself, > nor PHP Group software... Just to be clear on what is going on here, no one here at Debian c

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

> > Instead I propose that all RC bugs in PHP Group software released with > > the PHP License be closed. > > > > > Well, I'm still not happy about the "don't use the PHP name" clause, but we > seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment. So for > packages that have the PHP Gr

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:46:21 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Well, I'm still not happy about the "don't use the PHP name" clause, > > but we seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment. > > So for packages that h

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:46:21 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > Well, I'm still not happy about the "don't use the PHP name" clause, > but we seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment. > So for packages that have the PHP Group as their upstream, I think > it's reasonable to close th

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

To clarify what I was saying, SVN isn't 'on the edge', but SVN versions of software (e.g. running KDE 4 or something like that) are. Also the name 'PHP' is short and that makes the problem worse (e.g. the telegraph pole program). andrew On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sa

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:32:25PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > That's a matter of perspective, of course--Subversion is more important > > to me. > > Ever heard of G/LAMP? (GNU/Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Python/Perl) PHP > has many millions of installations around the world, and is used by >

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:00:55PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote: > Instead I propose that all RC bugs in PHP Group software released with > the PHP License be closed. > For the record, all previous discussions of this matter on debian-legal > have suggested that the PHP License might be non-free for e

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0? > > The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright > shows some pieces that still use the old one

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0? The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright shows some pieces that still use the old one. I havn't looked to see how much. > If this is case, the m

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:59:05 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: > I don't know if it's a battle worth fighting now. Like patch clauses, > there are so few of them that it's probably not that big a battle, but > if you do want to fight that fight, I don't think "PHP" is any worse > than "Apache", so the ob

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:07:34 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:05:03 -0500 Charles Fry wrote: [...] > > Please help persuading the PHP Group to fix the license once and for > > all (at least for PHP itself and oth

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:31:07PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > I set the MFT to go to -legal only in my response, so I've no clue why > you sent it to -devel again. I used Mutt's list-reply feature, which included d-d. Either the headers were set incorrectly, or Mutt has a bug. (It doesn't bot

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (Why is this being CC'd to d-d?) I set the MFT to go to -legal only in my response, so I've no clue why you sent it to -devel again. > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > >4. Products derived from this software may not b

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Feb 03, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This clause has been examined carefully in the past and deemed ugly > but not non-free (at least, with no serious objections)--at least in > the "Apache", etc. cases. However, I don't think that should be extended > to the general case; "nor m

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

(Why is this being CC'd to d-d?) On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: >4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor >may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission >from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] > > For example, I shoul

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, Charles Fry wrote: > Instead I propose that all RC bugs in PHP Group software released > with the PHP License be closed. > > For the record, all previous discussions of this matter on > debian-legal have suggested that the PHP License might be non-free > for everything (includ

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

-Original Message- > From: José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages > Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:27:53 -0200 > To: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debia

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:05:03 -0500 Charles Fry wrote: > > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP > > License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group > > software. This claim has been upheld over

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:05:03 -0500 Charles Fry wrote: > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP > License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group > software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic > discussion on the matter at debian-legal. > > Giv

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

urrent RC bugs related to the PHP License. > > cheers, > Charles > > -Original Message----- > > From: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: PHP License for PHP Group packages > > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:41:33 -0500 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

discussion and deal professionally with the upstream authors of the current RC bugs related to the PHP License. cheers, Charles -Original Message- > From: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: PHP License for PHP Group packages > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:41:33 -0500 > To

PHP License for PHP Group packages

FTP Masters, As you are well aware, the current REJECT-FAQ[1] forbids the use of the PHP License for anything except for PHP itself. In August I contacted the Pear Group about this[2], to no immediate avail. In October Joerg Jaspert opened a number of RC bugs with existing Debian packages of Pear