Re: Bug#318204: ITP: php-simpletest -- Unit testing and web testing framework for PHP

> > * License : The Open Group Test Suite License > > I'm not optimistic about this licence being DFSG-free. Hi, I was wondering if Debian-legal could offer any insight on this matter. I searched the mailing list archives, and found no explicit discussion of this license. The only potent

PHP License

Hi, I am working with other members of the Debian devlopment team to include many of your fine PEAR packages in Debian. One recurring problem has been consistently arising however, that we have had a hard time addressing at the correct level, which is why I am contacting you about it. The problem

Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP License

> > 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] You may indicate that your software works in > > conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it > > "

Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP License

> > Given that you and all others who have weighed in on this issue agree > > that the license should be fixed, I invite the PEAR Group to now take > > the initiative to address this issue in the manner that they find most > > appropriate. :-) > > We are working on this. In an effort to ensure th

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> It affects many packages. See also > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00491.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00238.html > and maybe coordinate fix efforts with Charles Fry. This is the third time that this issue has made it into Debian Weekly Ne

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

The one big thing that everyone in this thread has missed is that we are trying to establish the utility of this licence to software explicitely distributed by the PHP Group at php.net in Pear or Pecl. > > > > The PHP License, ve

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> > The one big thing that everyone in this thread has missed is that we are > > trying to establish the utility of this licence to software explicitely > > distributed by the PHP Group at php.net in Pear or Pecl. > > Is all that software also written/copyrighted by the PHP Group? It is only dist

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

[Pierre, note the note for you at the bottom.] > > That is not true. Read carefully the change in wording that they > > introduced: "This product includes PHP software, freely available from > > ," which would be absolutely true, even in > > the distribution of a sing

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> What I did is a review of the license. > While doing that, I pointed out all the issues I could find, for > completeness' sake. > I found three sets of issues: the ones that come up when > > * the license is applied to PHP itself, > * the license is applied to other software distributed by the P

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> Maybe you missed my earlier reply to this thread, where I explain that > requiring that I say that what I'm distributing is available at some URL > really is forcing me to "lie", if I've modified it. (I don't have a > strong feeling that it's non-free, just a poorly-written license.) I noticed

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

arles -Original Message- > From: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status > Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:38:36 -0500 > To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > Mail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, >

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

ail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mail-Copies-To: nobody > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote: > > Does anyone have any objections to my claims here? If not, then I will > > request that new Pear packages using the PHP License b

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> > I am just trying to insist that if we accept this license as valid for > > PHP, then I don't see how we can reject it for use by the Pear Group. > > Does that part sound reasonable? > > Nobody should be claiming that a license is free for the original > PHP, but not when anyone else uses it.

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> > Does anyone have any objections to my claims here? If not, then I will > > request that new Pear packages using the PHP License be accepted, and > > I'll close the current RC bugs against Pear packages licenced under > > the PHP License if they upgrade to the most recent version. > [...] > > D

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

in the long term we will be able to come to a solution that allows Debian to freely distribute the bulk of the Pear projects. cheers, Charles -Original Message- > From: Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status > Date: Tue, 29

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> > Given this, I would like to once again suggest that the Pear Group > > consider removing the PHP License from their list of accepted licenses. > > As previously discussed, existing projects may take time to be > > relicensed, but I see no reason to allow new Pear projects to use the > > PHP Lic

PHP License

I just wanted to make sure that all relevant RC bugs were aware of the following debian-legal post by MJ Ray: "The PHP licence could be OK for any software which has PHP Group contribution (regardless who is licensing later), but would require lying about other software. So, it is possib

Re: PHP License

, assuming that they deal with Pear packages, which I have not taken the time to verify. The PHP License clearly remains unacceptable for all non-PHP Group software. Charles 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00260.html -Original Message- > From: Charles Fry <

PHP License for PHP Group packages

FTP Masters, As you are well aware, the current REJECT-FAQ[1] forbids the use of the PHP License for anything except for PHP itself. In August I contacted the Pear Group about this[2], to no immediate avail. In October Joerg Jaspert opened a number of RC bugs with existing Debian packages of Pear

Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol

> * Package name: php-net-imap > Version : 1.0.3 > Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP > * License : php license You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1] your pac

Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol

> > >2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html > > the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it > can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution. Please read the message to debian-legal that I originally referenced. It outlines recent

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

discussion and deal professionally with the upstream authors of the current RC bugs related to the PHP License. cheers, Charles -Original Message- > From: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: PHP License for PHP Group packages > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:41:33 -0500 > To

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

> > 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

> 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

please update the license text

severity 332606 important severity 332607 important severity 332608 important severity 332609 important severity 332610 important severity 332611 important severity 332613 important severity 332614 important severity 332615 important severity 332616 important severity 332617 important severity 3326

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

> > 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...

> 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: Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk

> > A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. > > Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. > > I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. > > A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) > language! > > Java? i

sharpmusique in Debian

Hi, Is there any legal reason why sharpmusique is not in Debian, given that multiple .deb packages already exist? Charles -- Our fortune Is your Shaven face It's our best Advertising space Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1953/our_fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: sharpmusique in Debian

> > Is there any legal reason why sharpmusique is not in Debian, given that > > multiple .deb packages already exist? > > If you're going to ask about a license (which is what I assume you are > doing), please include the license in question (unless it is in > /usr/share/common-licenses). In this

Re: [Pkg-awstats-devel] Bug#388571: awstats: Non-free Firefox icon included

Can anyone comment on whether or not it is problematic for us to distribute a tiny icon of Firefox's logo? The only thing I could find is: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/buttons.html which says "Mozilla Firefox and the Firefox logo are trademarks of The Mozilla Foundation. Usage guide