On 30/06/14 23:47, Marco d'Itri 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". > The fact that ~nobody else believes this, the authors of these > extentions among them, indeed suggests that you are mistaken. I agree. The text of a license don't means the same to a lawyer than to a developer. Developers try to understand licenses by applying logic, but logic don't always translates into legal requirements. One example of that is the common usage of the "All rights reserved" wording on BSD licenses. [1] Another example is the *huge* list of software that we distribute that claims to be provided by the regents of the University of California [2], when that is clearly not true in many cases: $ grep -l 'THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS' /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | wc -l 360 So, unless a lawyer (or the authors of the license) tells us that using the "PHP License version 3.01" for distributing software not developed by the "PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM" is illegal, I suggest that we close all the bugs filed, and that we remove the "Uses PHP License, but is not PHP" from the REJECT-FAQ. --- [1] http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-June/001011.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature