My big concern at this time is not how Debian comes down on the PHP License with respect to PHP (and by implication the Pear Group). 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? Charles -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> > Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:33:40 -0500 > To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > Cc: debian@frogcircus.org > Mail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian@frogcircus.org > 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 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. > > I think your interpretation of the text is contrived to try to make it > true, and I don't think it's a natural interpretation. But I'm ambivalent > to calling that non-free, which is why I'm not spending our time trying > to come to agreement about that. > > Actually, just the inclusion of a URL has problems: domains are lost and > links are broken, and this text--and tons of others--may well be untrue > ten years from now, when the link breaks and nobody is permitted to fix > it. That might even cost people money, when bugs are filed for a > commercial product forced to include a dead link. But there are bigger > licensing problems in the world, and limited time to fight for them ... > > -- > Glenn Maynard -- This will never Come to pass A back-seat Driver Out of gas Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1960/this_will_never
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature