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 httpd, and
> Mozilla license is
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 player, a cons
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
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel wrote:
> 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 pos
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel wrote:
>> 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
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel
> wrote:
> >> Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> >>> I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it
> seem
On Jun 27, 2014 12:00 PM, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye
wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye
wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel
wrote:
>> >> Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
>> >>> I think th
Am 27.06.2014 11:28, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel wrote:
>> 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
>>>
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
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, 2014-06-27 at 09:56 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 09:56 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
