Re: PHP License on PHP extensions

On Tue, 27 May 2014 14:18:05 +0200 Ondřej Surý wrote: > Hi Debian Legal, Hello! > > I would like to raise the question of PHP License on PHP PEAR/PECL > extensions again (<87oe86iy0x@vorlon.ganneff.de>). > > There are quite a lot of extensions packaged under PHP License 3.01: [...] > and t

Re: PHP license style

On Sun, 28 May 2006 07:27:04 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:41:16 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > > > Wow, that's arrogant, not only reserving the package's filename > > > (arguably acceptable to ensure integrity) but the names of many > > > possible deri

Re: PHP license style [was: Re: licenses with name changing clauses]

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:41:16 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > > Wow, that's arrogant, not only reserving the package's filename > > (arguably acceptable to ensure integrity) but the names of many > > possible derivatives/competitors. > > Does this mean that you agree with

Re: PHP license...

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:59:36 -0400 Charles Fry wrote: > > As you may have read in the thread you're referring to (I don't know > > which of them, as there are quite several), I don't agree. > > I believe that PHP license version 3.01 does not comply > > with the DFSG, even when applied to PHP itse

Re: PHP license...

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:45:00 +0200 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 22:13, Francesco Poli a écrit : [...] > > As you may have read in the thread you're referring to (I don't know > > which of them, as there are quite several), I don't agree. > > I believe that PHP license version 3.01

Re: PHP license...

> As you may have read in the thread you're referring to (I don't know > which of them, as there are quite several), I don't agree. > I believe that PHP license version 3.01 does not comply > with the DFSG, even when applied to PHP itself or to PHP Group software. > The problematic clause is #4. >

Re: PHP license...

Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 22:13, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:00:51 +0200 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > I've read the thread about PHP license 3.01 in february, and had > > the impression that the consensus was that that license is > > acceptable for things that come from the PHP Group

Re: PHP license...

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:00:51 +0200 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Hi, I'm packaging a PHP C extension, that was licensed under the LGPL, > but is now under the PHP license. > > it was unofficial, but is now listed on PECL[1] and the lead > developper has an @php.net address, and is member of the PHP G

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

Charles, I agree with you, but I think ftp master will not change. I really do not have more time to this unfinished topic :( Can you adopt these packages that have RC bugs because license ? php-net-checkip php-services-weather I will be very grateful, as this packages are dependence from anothe

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

It would be most helpful if we could make some progress on this issue. There are a handful of RC bugs whose maintainers are trying to work with their upstream authors to find resolution. In some cases the upstream authors believe that the problem should be fixed with the new PHP License. It is beco

Re: PHP License

Just to clarify the context of my previous message, in November Pierre from the Pear Group reported[1] that the PHP License was modified to address the most severe of our concerns about its freeness. The resultant license, unlike the previous version, appears to at least apply equally to PHP and ot

Re: PHP License for stuff thats not PHP itself

Scripsit Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt as examples). > 3. and 4. are IMO highly questionable if not directly non-free. > With 4 you dont seem to be allowed to call it php if there is a > diff.gz... And now try to use that point on a php-foo package. I agr