[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: RFS: eaccelerator - PHP script cacher]

Jonathan Oxer wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 12:07 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>Quoting Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>:
>>>* Roberto C. Sanchez:
>>>>I forwarding this to d-d since after a couple of days I
>>>>still have no response from anyone on d-m willing to sponsor
>>>>this package.
>>>Please have a look at the following discussions:
>>Thanks.  I was not aware.  Is there a problem with me providing the 
> Yes, it's a problem. This has been a long ongoing debate originally
> among Turck-mmcache users (I'm the turck-mmcache maintainer) and now
> among eAccelerator users / developers (I've also created eAccelerator
> packages, but I haven't submitted them to the archive because the legal
> situation needs to be resolved first).
OK.  I have removed the packages so they are no longer available from
my website.
> In fact there are now two problems with eAccelerator. The first problem
> which was carried over from Turck-mmcache was the GPL/PHP licence
> linking problem, and now there is also possibly a copyright problem
> because when the project was forked the new developers simply removed
> all the Turcksoft copyrights and added their own.
This is lamentable.  It would be tragic if such an excelent piece of
free software were lost because of what amounts to carelessness.

>>I am not distributing PHP at all, and I also have the eAccelerator
>>source available with the binary.
> Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem because it would mean
> distributing binaries that have been linked against PHP, which has a
> GPL-incompatible licence.
I see.

> One of the suggestions a long time ago was to replace the Turck-mmcache
> package with a 'loader' package that grabbed the source tarball and
> built it on the target machine, but I resisted that idea because it
> would require the target machine to have all sorts of things installed
> including a compiler, the C dev libs, the PHP source, and a bunch of
> other things that wouldn't typically exist on a deployment server. It
> would also be a rather jarring experience for the admin, with a package
> install taking quite a few minutes and chewing up all the CPU time
> rather than the fractions of a second required to install a binary
> package. It would technically work and it would be legal, but it would
> be a very ugly kludge.
I agree.  Personally, I like to keep my servers as light as possible.
Development tools add quite a bit to the foot print and open the door
to the possibility of rootkits that make use of a compiler.

>>I really hope that this is worked out.
> So do I. I've had a brief informal chat to Jeremy Malcolm of iLaw (who
> also happens to be Linux Australia's legal counsel) about the situation
> and I'll probably follow this up with him in a more formal way when I
> get a chance. I'm happy to pay the $$$ to get formal legal advice on
> this issue if it helps resolve things.
> The primary issue to resolve is the ownership of the codebase so that it
> can be re-licenced. At present the copyright of Turck-mmache resides
> with Turcksoft, a Russian company that now seems to be out of business.
> As a result there's no-one to re-licence the code to LGPL or similar,
> which would then make binaries built against PHP legal to distribute.
I hope that this happens soon.  :-)

> Cheers   :-)
> Jonathan Oxer


Roberto C. Sanchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: