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
Le Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 08:10:49AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> 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.
Sorry for the extra
Le Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:59:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> 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 would like some advice.
Hello Ian and
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:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:22:50 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Draft question for SFLC:
[...]
>
> We are concerned here with the PHP 3.0 Licence, which can be found
> here: http://php.net/license/3_0.txt
Wait! This license version is already obsolete!
Please revise your draft in light of the current
PH
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
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
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 the
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,
Hi!
> I think everyone does claim that. You do know Debian doesn't just
Everyone being whom specifically?
> distribute the binaries from Php.net, right? No contortion: the php5
> in Debian is a derived work. Here's a list of patches
> http://sources.debian.net/src/php5/5.6.0%7Erc2%2Bdfsg-5/debia
Le Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 02:38:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>
> That, too. But AIUI that licence also forbids us from shipping
> a modified version of PHP without rebranding (like Firefox(tm)).
I think that we are ridiculing ourselves by ignoring the arguments that have
been given to us b
0 de julho de 2014 19:35
Para: keis...@gmail.com
Cc: smalys...@sugarcrm.com; t...@debian.org; pecl-...@lists.php.net;
debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Assunto: Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
ngel Gonz lez wrote:
> Trying to keep the spirit of the PHP License and at
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 known license
s
On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev 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
You could not distribute other derive
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,
Hi!
> This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes
> *all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistribution of
> derived works is only permitted from *.php.net which is clearly inaccep-
> table. This makes not just forking the software impossible but also
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#3 at the very least, and make
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 written in PHP.
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
Hi Ian,
Thanks for bringing this up.
On 30/07/14 at 13:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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 relat
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 "Serious violations" list on the Debian FT
On 30/07/2014 06:09, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi Walter,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I've find it a bit disturbing, that ftpmasters can make a decision on legal
grounds(which is the probably the highest priority for debian as far as I'm
concerned), wi
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 least, and makes
> *all* s
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, because redistri
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 software you get from/via *.php.net.
>
> Specifically, the
> 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/common-licenses/BSD
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 define as software you get from/via *.php.net.
[
hi Walter,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
> Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>> I've find it a bit disturbing, that ftpmasters can make a decision on legal
>> grounds(which is the probably the highest priority for debian as far as I'm
>> concerned), without any backing from debian-leg
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 *.php.net.
>
> Specifically, the license
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/3_01.txt> has
this
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 outsider point
On 07/29/2014 03:16 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
> Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>> I've find it a bit disturbing, that ftpmasters can make a decision on legal
>> grounds(which is the probably the highest priority for debian as far as I'm
>> concerned), without any backing from debian-legal
>
> debian-legal h
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> I've find it a bit disturbing, that ftpmasters can make a decision on legal
> grounds(which is the probably the highest priority for debian as far as I'm
> concerned), without any backing from debian-legal
debian-legal has no authority to decide anything. It is just a
mail
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
debian-legal isn't the body that makes this decision, you might want
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org
Thanks,
Paul
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM, James Wade wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There seems to be some confusion over the PHP
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.
>
> * https://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php
50 matches
Mail list logo
