> On May 25, 2024, at 10:03, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> Some minor nitpicks (once again, by a non-native speaker, so they could
> be wrong...): it's not the PHP License, version 4.0, which adopts the
> 3-clause BSD license; it's the PHP Group which adopts the 3-clause
t;>
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes.
> >
> > After a short review, they look OK to me.
> >
> > The only thing that I would emphasize more is: the PHP License, version
> > 4.0 should not just have the text iden
diff of the changes here:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716433712&rev2%5B1%5D=1716437291&difftype=sidebyside
>>
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes.
>
> After a short review,
6433712&rev2%5B1%5D=1716437291&difftype=sidebyside
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes.
After a short review, they look OK to me.
The only thing that I would emphasize more is: the PHP License, version
4.0 should not just have the text identica
> On May 21, 2024, at 19:58, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>
> This is something that didn’t cross my mind while I was putting together the
> RFC, so I’m glad I posted to this list.
>
> Thank you for the suggestions! I’ll update the RFC and will reply here when
> I’ve made the changes.
I’ve updated the
> On May 21, 2024, at 16:32, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2024 14:53:48 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 2024, at 11:42, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
>>> If the PHP Group decides to elect the 3-clause BSD license as the next
>>> versio
> On May 21, 2024, at 11:49, Richard Laager wrote:
>
> On 2024-05-19 14:53, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>> One of my goals with the RFC is to get rid of the idea of a “PHP License,”
>> so it deprecates the PHP License and *replaces* it with the BSD 3-Clause
>> License. I do
On Sun, 19 May 2024 14:53:48 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:
> On May 19, 2024, at 11:42, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > If the PHP Group decides to elect the 3-clause BSD license as the next
> > version (4.0) of the PHP License, then clause 5 of the PHP License version
> > 3.01
On 2024-05-19 14:53, Ben Ramsey wrote:
One of my goals with the RFC is to get rid of the idea of a “PHP License,” so
it deprecates the PHP License and *replaces* it with the BSD 3-Clause License.
I don’t want there to be a “PHP License, version 4.0.” I think that will
continue to cause
oversteps this invisible boundary by applying itself more broadly.
>> External extensions currently licensed under the PHP License may
>> continue to use the PHP License. There is no need to change extension
>> licenses.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> If the PHP Group decide
On Sat, 18 May 2024 15:18:36 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:
> Hi, all!
Hello Ben!
>
> Over the years, the open source community, including Debian, has had
> a few lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the PHP
> license.[^1][^2][^3] The TL;DR sentiment of all these discussio
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 03:18:36PM -0500, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> Over the years, the open source community, including Debian, has had a few
> lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the PHP license.[^1][^2][^3]
> The TL;DR sentiment of all these discussions amo
Hi, all!
Over the years, the open source community, including Debian, has had a few
lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the PHP license.[^1][^2][^3]
The TL;DR sentiment of all these discussions amounts to: change the license to
something well-understood and less problematic.
So
Hello,
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
I talked extensively to Athos during DebConf and, after looking at the
multiple licenses and nuances involved in this problem I believe:
1) Athos followed precisely the instructions from ftp-masters
(https://ftp-master.debian.org
3.0 issues I pointed
before.
Do you mean the PHP-3.0[-only] issue:
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/license-problem-php-license
which appears to be the same as the PHP-3.1[-or-greater?] issue?
https://ftp-master.debian.org/php-license.html
Is the problem you're referring appears to be
inted
> before.
>
Do you mean the PHP-3.0[-only] issue:
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/license-problem-php-license
which appears to be the same as the PHP-3.1[-or-greater?] issue?
https://ftp-master.debian.org/php-license.html
Is the problem you're referring appears to be that
Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl
extensions"):
> Thanks for the reply.
Sorry about the delay replying. This one is more complicated than
most.
> I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that
> origina
2016. febr. 22. 20:12 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
> I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that
originally not answered or just lost somewhere when forwarding?
> My understanding on the first look is th
On 2/22/2016 2:12 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> My understanding on the first look is that the PHP license is flawed
> (tries to limit the usage of php in naming but that is a futile
> attempt without registering a trademark)
Your premise that registration is required before tradema
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the reply.
I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that
originally not answered or just lost somewhere when forwarding?
My understanding on the first look is that the PHP license is flawed (tries
to limit the usage of php in naming but that is a futile
Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl
extensions"):
> I was just wondering if you were contacted or that you still plan to
> publish the legal advice received back then?
Thanks for the reminder. I knew I wouldn't need to ma
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ian Jackson <
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
> pear/pecl extensions"):
> > Thanks, I will try to not give up.
>
> I think this continued delay is g
Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl
extensions"):
> Thanks, I will try to not give up.
I think this continued delay is getting rather silly. I have heard
nothing other than these periodic pings. Can someone explain to me
what the reaso
2016. jan. 14. 5:00 ezt írta ("Charles Plessy" ):
>
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>
> >> On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from
SFLC.
> >> IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
>
> On Fri
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
>> IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> AI
PM, Neil McGovern
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> >> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
>> >> >
>> >> > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the P
Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
> >> >
> >> > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license
> for pear/pecl extensions"):
> >> > > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of qu
2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
>> >
>> > Lucas
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > (resending because my MUA messed up)
> >
> > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
> pear/pecl extensions&q
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (resending because my MUA messed up)
>
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
> pear/pecl extensions"):
> > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions t
(resending because my MUA messed up)
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for
pear/pecl extensions"):
> When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
> not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this quest
Hi,
When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm Ccing
leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
- Lucas
signature.asc
D
;
I suppose/hope they re-evaluted it when Ondřej contacted them regarding
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752629 but it seems that
the discussion ended with the same result:
I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters
and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version
If the current FAQ entry related to PHP hasn't changed since
http://web.archive.org/web/20051016231155/http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html,
I don't think the entry, and most importantly the phrase « That license,
up to the 3.x which is actually out, is not really usable for anything
el
ons(
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/12/msg0.html)
While the questions are specific to the PHP license, the original topic
which sparked the discussion was about the usage of the php license for
software other than the php itself.
The PHP Group and every php core devs participating
Sorry to write to the list again, but can anyone confirm that the
questions to the SFLC about the PHP license have actually been sent? It's
been about two weeks since the letter was written.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
If no-one has any more concerns about the letter, should it be sent off now?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e930ee.2090...@bitmessage.ch
MJ Ray writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> On 4 August 2014 13:26:11 GMT+01:00, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> >Can you please confirm that the question I put in my draft questions
> >for SFLC, on this subject, addresses this point ? If I haven't
>
On 4 August 2014 13:26:11 GMT+01:00, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>(-project dropped from the CC)
>
>MJ Ray writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
>> Secondly, unless it says otherwise, a naming restriction in a
>> copyright licence doesn't permit hone
(-project dropped from the CC)
MJ Ray writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> Secondly, unless it says otherwise, a naming restriction in a
> copyright licence doesn't permit honest source attribution and all
> the other nominative and fair uses that a
Francesco Poli writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:59:11 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Paragraph 6 of the main licence text requires this notice:
> >
> >"This product includes PHP software, freely available from
&
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> I think that it is important that a few of the ‘some members’ would
> identify themselves in support for that request, and explain what
> they would do if the worries expressed below turned out to be true.
A
On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:59:11 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> > Wait! This license version is already obsolete!
>
> Thanks for pointing that out.
You're welcome!
>
> > Please revise you
On 31 July 2014 01:03:00 CEST, Charles Plessy wrote:
>Back to the question of rebranding, the PHP developers have already
>explained
>that because PHP is a three-letter word, they are not in a position to
>protect their name with a trademark. Therefore, they do it with a
>license.
>
>We can not
orry for the extra mail; I just would like to clarify that by “Developers in
support”, I mean: “Developers who think that the PHP license may be
problematic”, not “Developers who think that calling lawyers will be an
efficient mean to resolve the disagreements”.
Cheers,
--
Charles
--
To UNSUBSCRI
erhaps under a
> different name), since we may have come to rely on it.
It is important to note that clarifications on the PHP license have already
been given by PHP developers. The question is then if they are free to revert
their clarifications and use a new interpretation of their license to
Last minute concerns:
The warranty disclaimer states that the software is provided by the PHP
development team. What if it isn't? Do people that are not members of
the PHP development team have the right to make that claim on their behalf?
Similarly, the license includes the phrase "This software
On 1 August 2014 17:59:11 CEST, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>Similar situations often arise in relation to trademarks. Our usual
>approach in such cases has been to rely on the informal assurances,
>and not seek any kind of formal trademark licence amendment.
I thought we relied on the fact that tradema
Francesco Poli writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> Wait! This license version is already obsolete!
Thanks for pointing that out.
> Please revise your draft in light of the current
> PHP License, version 3.01:
> http://php.net/license/3_01.txt
> https:
the current
PHP License, version 3.01:
http://php.net/license/3_01.txt
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00271.html
For the record, my own personal concerns about the PHP License are
described in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html
Thanks for your time!
Draft question for SFLC:
Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP
licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant
upstreams.
We are concerned here with the PHP 3.0 Licence, which can be found
here: http://php.net/license/3_0.txt
There are two co
Ángel González dixit:
> Please remember that we are just talking about changes that Debian
> itself may want to perform (so it doesn't require a renaming which
> would be bad both for PHP and Debian users).
Right, but Debian probably (though it’s up to Ondřej Surý, the
maintainer; there is no cen
that's what the PHP developers are trying to express with
the PHP License
(although it's not explictely named as such). You may prefer a term like
"substantially
modified" but it's the same thing.
There is some ambiguity on what is a B+minor patchB;, but I feel it'
Ángel González dixit:
> On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP
>> - but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a "product derived
>> from PHP" but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
The actu
On 31/07/14 10:54, Walter Landry wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>> Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style?
>>
>> No, this is completely infeasible
>
> That is not correct. It is very easy to change the license because
> the license has an upgrade clause (condition
Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style?
>
> No, this is completely infeasible
That is not correct. It is very easy to change the license because
the license has an upgrade clause (condition #5).
Cheers,
Walter Landry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
sual, like MIT/X style?
No, this is completely infeasible - this would require asking permission
from every contributor from the start of the project. Moreover, this
titanic effort would be completely useless as it would achieve no useful
purpose, because everybody - including Debian - is free
ven to us by the PHP developers in the past.
See, we are getting famous in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP_License#Debian_packaging_controversy
Debian maintainers have had a long-standing discussion (since at least 2005)
about the validity of the PHP license.[4] Expressed concern
Walter :
I agree to stop discussing this.
The problem is not PHP.
Only Debian can't accept de PHP license.
The PHP License is good for PHP as is? YES!!! that's all.
Alejandro M.S
-Mensagem original-
De: Walter Landry [mailto:wlan...@caltech.edu]
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 3
Ángel González wrote:
> Trying to keep the spirit of the PHP License and at the same time
> solve that strict interpretation, I propose the following change to
> the PHP License 3.01, which will hopefully please both parties:
Stop. Please just stop. Please pick an existing, well know
They have a point. A buggy php version with an added patch that avoids
that it crashes when run on even dates could be considered -from a legal
POV- a «derivative product of PHP». Legal-speak is quite different than
common sense.
Trying to keep the spirit of the PHP License and at the same time
On 30 July 2014 22:00:17 CEST, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
>fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of
>"PHP". I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute
>under the name of PHP is anything but the original product,
possible but also dis-
> tribution of binaries made from modified sources, for example.
I've by now read the PHP license here:
http://php.net/license/3_01.txt
about a dozen times and I still can't figure out where the claim
"redistribution of derived works is only permitted from *.php
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>>> On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not,
>>> in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the
>>> interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but
>>> that d
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>>As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly
>>valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
>
> This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>However, based on my own (possibly limited) understanding of the
>issue[1], this is case of a license (the PHP License) with sub-optimal
>wording that is misused by third parties, as it was initially designed
>for PHP itself, and is used for random software wr
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> On 30/07/14 at 13:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ?
> > Do we have a relationship with the SFLC we could use for this ?
>
> Sure, we
However, based on my own (possibly limited) understanding of the
issue[1], this is case of a license (the PHP License) with sub-optimal
wording that is misused by third parties, as it was initially designed
for PHP itself, and is used for random software written in PHP.
As a result, the license ad
There has been an ongoing and wholly unproductive conversation on
-legal about some difficulties with the PHP licence.
Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ?
Do we have a relationship with the SFLC we could use for this ?
If so I would be happy to write up a summary of t
> Hi all,
>
> Is it possible we can then work towards a resolution on this near decade
> old problem?
>
> Now we've established that the PHP License v3.01 resolves the problem
> outlined in the 2005 email, surely the PHP License can be removed from
> the "Seri
e, my
take on the PHP license is that it does need to be fixed. From
ftp-masters REJECT-FAQ, they also think so. So my advice would be to
just use a well known, existing license and be done with it. Judging
from the existing PHP license, the closest thing would be the 3 clause
BSD licens
On 30/07/14 21:07, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly
>> valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
>
> This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very
Pierre Joye wrote:
>As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly
>valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes
*all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, b
2014.07.30. 3:35, "Ben Finney" ezt írta:
>
> Rasmus Lerdorf writes:
>
> > I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from
> > *.php.net carrying the PHP license. The license talks about "PHP
> > Software" which we define as softwa
> You're advocating a position, then, that the PHP license can require
> recipients to make false, and even nonsensical, claims, and that this is
> not a problem to be addressed by improving the license terms.
I think that this is similar to the BSD licenses. Look at
/usr/share/c
Riley Baird
writes:
> On 30/07/14 10:21, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Rasmus Lerdorf writes:
> >> I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from
> >> *.php.net carrying the PHP license. The license talks about "PHP
> >> Software" which we
he interest of making this email constructive, my
> take on the PHP license is that it does need to be fixed. From
> ftp-masters REJECT-FAQ, they also think so. So my advice would be to
> just use a well known, existing license and be done with it. Judging
> from the existin
On 30/07/14 10:21, Ben Finney wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf writes:
>
>> I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from
>> *.php.net carrying the PHP license. The license talks about "PHP
>> Software" which we define as software you get from/via
Rasmus Lerdorf writes:
> I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from
> *.php.net carrying the PHP license. The license talks about "PHP
> Software" which we define as software you get from/via *.php.net.
Specifically, the license text http://php.net/license
Le Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 04:47:34PM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
>
> from the replies on the debian mailing lists it seems that this decision on
> dropping any project using the php license distributed outside of php-src
> is controversial to say the least.
Hello Ferenc,
from an ou
s if the Apache 2.0 license is compatible
> with the GPL (no for GPL 2.0, yes for GPL 3.0). Think of debian-legal
> as the secretary for ftp-masters. We can sometimes divine what they
> are thinking, but the final word belongs to ftp-masters.
>
> In any case, in the interest of maki
of debian-legal
as the secretary for ftp-masters. We can sometimes divine what they
are thinking, but the final word belongs to ftp-masters.
In any case, in the interest of making this email constructive, my
take on the PHP license is that it does need to be fixed. From
ftp-masters REJECT-FAQ, they
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Paul Tagliamonte
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:20:21PM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> >"If you feel to dispute this please take your *well-formed* and
> >*well-thought* arguments to debian-legal."
>
> ... to discuss it. d-legal is a proper venue for *
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Paul Tagliamonte
wrote:
> debian-legal isn't the body that makes this decision, you might want
> ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
Hi Paul,
To quote Ondřej from
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-rc@lists.debian.org/msg360686.html
"If
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:20:21PM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>"If you feel to dispute this please take your *well-formed* and
>*well-thought* arguments to debian-legal."
... to discuss it. d-legal is a proper venue for *discussing* it, but
it's not the right one to discuss the actual cri
There seems to be some confusion over the PHP License.
>>
>> We had this bug report into a PEAR project which outlines that Debian
>> cannot include any projects that fall under the PHP License.
>>
>> * https://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=20172
>>
>> You wil
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM, James Wade wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There seems to be some confusion over the PHP License.
>
> We had this bug report into a PEAR project which outlines that Debian
> cannot include any projects that fall under the PHP License.
>
> * h
roject is
exactly that some clauses (at least 3, 4, and 6 + some disclaimers) of
the PHP License v3.01 are inappropriate and/or troublesome for anything
that is not php-src.
Personally, I see one freeness issue even when the PHP License is
applied to php-src, but I failed to gain consensus on this w
se than php-src, like clause 3, 4 and 6.
> > And this is what they were complaining about in the thread referenced
> from
> > their reject faq:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
>
> Mind that this refers to PHP license 3.0, version 3.01 sli
aining about in the thread referenced from
> their reject faq:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
Mind that this refers to PHP license 3.0, version 3.01 slightly changed
the text (essentially s/includes PHP/includes PHP software/) to satisfy
Debian.
I agree th
Am 27.06.2014 13:18, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ulf Wendel wrote:
>
>> I perceive this reply as both sarcastic and agressive. Any particular
>> reason bashing someone doing nothing but asking not to rush?
>
> It is certainly due to the language differences but there
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ulf Wendel wrote:
> I perceive this reply as both sarcastic and agressive. Any particular
> reason bashing someone doing nothing but asking not to rush?
It is certainly due to the language differences but there was nothing
sarcastic nor aggressive in my reply. So
t to avoid possible license
>>> infringement.
>>
>> Just keep the scope of any possible PHP license change in mind.
>>
[...]
>> In a perfect world, you could do some tiny text changes to the license
>> without much hassle. In reality, this is a monster topic. An
Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
>> >>> I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it
seems too
>> >>> specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible license
>> >>> infringement.
>> >>
>> >>
r license troublesome for exts as it
> seems too
> >>> specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible license
> >>> infringement.
> >>
> >> Just keep the scope of any possible PHP license change in mind.
> >>
> >> You got one pla
only want to avoid possible license
>>> infringement.
>>
>> Just keep the scope of any possible PHP license change in mind.
>>
>> You got one player, a consumer/redistributor, that developed a hiccup
>> only recently. And, you have many, many other players that
Just keep the scope of any possible PHP license change in mind.
>
> You got one player, a consumer/redistributor, that developed a hiccup
> only recently. And, you have many, many other players that arranged
> themselves with todays PHP license over so many years. Licensing changes
&
Hi!
> I think the difference is that we have a couple of clauses which sounds
> weird/makes no sense when the license is used for extensions or anything
> else than php-src, like clause 3, 4 and 6.
> And this is what they were complaining about in the thread referenced
> from their reject faq:
> h
Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it seems too
> specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible license
> infringement.
Just keep the scope of any possible PHP license change in mind.
You got one
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Debian began to send requests to change PHP license for the PHP
> > Extension arguing that the PHP License is only valid for PHP itself.
>
> That's like saying Apache license is only valid for Apache
1 - 100 of 269 matches
Mail list logo
