[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 07/07/2014 04:19 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> 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
>> 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?

Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents
derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you
feel like it).


Reply to: