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

PHP License for PEAR packages



Hello. 

Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The 
reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.

I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are licensed 
with PHP License. What does it mean? Should I fill bug reports with critical 
severity for i.e. php-db, php4-pear-log, etc.?

Also I'm trying to explain this issue on pear-dev@lists.debian.org.

The full text of reject reason is following:

=======================================================

Hi Maintainer,

Im sorry but I need to reject this package out of NEW.

The reason for this decision is the license which does not really fit
the package. You package a php thing, either an addon "library" or a
php "application" which uses the PHP license. Unfortunately for you
this license can't really be used with anything else except PHP itself.

It always only talks about "the product PHP", not about software.
And "php-whatever" (or how the actual software may be called) isnt really
"PHP" from the PHP group.

Point 6 (in version 3 of the license, Point 5 in the older version 2) is
also an advertisement clause. Bad thing which is usually discouraged.

And, at the end there is the following text:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
individuals on behalf of the PHP Group.

The PHP Group can be contacted via Email at group@php.net.

For more information on the PHP Group and the PHP project, 
please see <http://www.php.net>.

This product includes the Zend Engine, freely available at
<http://www.zend.com>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that your package is made "on behalf of the PHP group".
Or that it includes the Zend Engine.

As a good solution for this I suggest to talk to your upstream.
Looking at the license they choosed they do want to make it available
for everyone, so I suggest to use either the original BSD license
or the LGPL.

As soon as this is fixed you are of course free to reupload the package.


-- 
 .''`.    Piotr Roszatycki, Netia SA
: :' :    mailto:Piotr_Roszatycki@netia.net.pl
`. `'     mailto:dexter@debian.org
  `-



Reply to: