On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:09:27 +0000 MJ Ray wrote: > Raphael Geissert wrote: > > -legal: can a final concensus be reached on whether this licence is DFSG-free? > > I'm happy to support > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html > > To summarise:- > > - unacceptable name approval restrictions for anything except PHP > (DFSG 4); > > - general non-applicability and false statements for anything other > than PHP Group works. > > Furthermore, the licence is generally vague and ambiguous and open to > various interpretations. It's disappointing it remains unfixed. I agree it's disappointing that the license is still unfixed. But I think it's not surprising at all, taking into account how few people seem to care about PHP license issues... I repeatedly stated my opinion on the PHP license and its unfixed issues: I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01), fails to meet the DFSG, even for PHP itself! However I failed to gain consensus on debian-legal about the problem: other people seem to disagree and/or don't seem to care much. See my analysis of the license at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html for further details. N.B.: the above is my own personal opinion and my usual disclaimers apply (IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP). -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND "nano-documents" may lead you to my website... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpABki11WfVN.pgp
Description: PGP signature