Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 22:13, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:00:51 +0200 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > I've read the thread about PHP license 3.01 in february, and had > > the impression that the consensus was that that license is > > acceptable for things that come from the PHP Group. is that still > > the case, can I upload the new version ? > > 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. > > […] > > In particular, my analysis of the PHP License version 3.01 can be > found here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00271.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html Point is, I'm not conviced at all that #4 makes php non free. It's an irritating clause, but it does not prevent me to exercice the 4 basic free software freedoms. It just says that you cannot use php in the *name* of the product, as it's a reserved token for products from the PHP group. but it explicitely allow you to say "libFoo" is a lib that does Foo for PHP, or to call your project "libFoo for PHP". PHP does not only refers to an language (like python, C, Ada does) but to the specific Zend implementation of that language. This clause may be called clumsy, but not non-free IMHO. > I would like to explicitly (re)stress that this analysis is my > opinion only and didn't gain wide consensus on debian-legal. > Nonetheless, I didn't get a satisfactory rebuttal. > Consequently, I believe this issue is still open and undecided. well, how could we have this decided once for all ? requiring a GR on that issue seems a bit exagerated ... -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp9CQLPBZouk.pgp
Description: PGP signature