On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:36:18PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: > >I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's > >some more background on the bugs filled. > >I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters > >and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is > >suitable only for software that comes directly from "PHP Group", > >that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. > Could you elaborate on the reasoning of that? Neither your email to -devel > nor the one to -legal[1] explains why you think so and whatever it is, I > think it's far from obvious. I think an outcome that results in a mass (RC) > bug filing needs to be better documented than that -- and btw, you're > supposed to mail debian-devel *before* you do so, not after; cf. developer's > reference 7.1.1. > Besides the importance of the bug filing itself and removing half of PHP > from Debian (including packages such as php-memcached!), I have another > point to make: as you're well aware, we're in the progress of packaging > Facebook's HHVM, which is a new runtime engine for PHP that is gaining some > popularity[2]. Furthermore, there are bugs in the actual MBF that's been filed here. Bug #752639 was filed against php-imlib, which gives the PHP license as one of *two* options under which the work can be distributed - LGPL is the other, and is in practice the one that's in effect for Debian. So I think we need a review here of the MBF methodology, because the problems with the PHP License were already identified and worked through in the archive a decade ago - so a lot of these bugs are probably false positives. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature