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
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
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
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
> 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
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 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
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 could ask for advice from SFLC a
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.
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
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
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 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,
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
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
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, 30 de julho d
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
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
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,
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
