Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Unless I'm mistaken, the wording in the PHP license makes it
>> invalid for anybody that isn't actually the PHP project to use
>> without making a false claim that "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE
>> PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM".
> IMO, you are mistaking indeed. Anyone contributing a module to
> pear.php.net PEAR channel can be considered from the "PHP development
> team". That's a question of view, and we've accepted that view, so
> why should we go back after we have accepted packages based on this?
> This is also the view of upstream PHP (the language) and upstream
> PEAR module contributors, as much as one can tell. If you do not
> agree, please point to anyone who expressed otherwise.
One question / consideration:
Even assuming that all contributions accepted into modules hosted on
pear.php.net are considered automatically "from the PHP Development
Team", and thus that the statement in the license would remain accurate,
wouldn't this mean that it wouldn't be possible to make local
modifications to a module found there and distribute them by other means
(e.g. even within one's own organization) without either making a false
statement in the license or violating the license?
If it would mean that, then wouldn't this license be considered non-free?
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----