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

Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 10:17, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> (C) Bite the bullet and admit that when everybody else calls a color
>     "light blue" which we consider to be "cyan", we might as well docuent
>     that fact instead of trying to convince everybody else that they're
>     wrong, even if they are, from our PoV. After all, the color stays the
>     same, no matter what people call it.
>     By the same token, this license is valid by force of everybody under
>     the sun considering it to be valid (taking intent and all that into
>     account). The chance of an author of / contributor to one of these
>     packages (nobody else has any legal standing to do so) suing us for
>     distributing this code is … well … I suspect that if you want to get
>     a lawyer to laugh, you might as well ask them.
> So. Bottom line: Can we agree to compromise on some modification of
> (C) informally, or is a GR required?

JFTR the http://www.php.net/software page claims that software
distributed from php.net, pecl.php.net and pear.php.net distributes
software under PHP License[1].

This was also claimed in some private emails between me and
PHP folks[2].

My conclusion is that the PHP folks do agree that the PHP License
cannot be used for software outside *.php.net, but it's perfectly OK
for stuff distributed from *.php.net.

If there's no wild disagreement from FTP Masters on this in couple
of days I will just start closing bugs on packages distributed from

1,2: smarty3 should be okay as well, it's just not yet documented there.

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server

Reply to: