Bug#903999: ITP: php-doc -- Documentation for PHP
Control: retitle -1 ITP: php-doc -- Documentation for PHP
Control: owner -1 !
X-Debbugs-CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
* Package name : php-doc
Version : 20220919~git.2aee619
Upstream Author : The PHP Documentation Group
* URL : http://docs.php.net/manual/en/
* License : CC-BY-3.0 and Expat and BSD-2-Clause and PHP-3.01 and PHP-3.0
Description : Documentation for PHP
I have prepared an initial update at https://salsa.debian.org/athos/php-doc
The idea here would be to maintain the package under the PHP team
As mentioned in the original report (RFP), this package was originally
removed from the archive due to Bug #821695, when it was not updated
during the PHP 7 transition.
Since then a few lincesing discussions happened regarding the PHP
Some of these discussions were around the feasibility of shipping
software licensed under the PHP license, which resulted in the following
and the following notice:
Note that while the first mentions PHP-3.0 ("exactly"), the latter only
mentions PHP-3.01. Here, it seems that the first is just outdated and
should be updated to day PHP-3.01.
Now, I wonder if it is feasible to introduce this specific package back
in Debian, given its source includes PHP-3.0 licensed files.
In a quick search through the archive, I could only find 2 packages
including the PHP-3.0 license, php itself and civicrm.
Do we refrain from shipping PHP-3.0 licensed software other than PHP
itself due to the working of the PHP-3.0 license? If so, should that
also apply for the php documentation as well?
Regarding the lintian warning (license-problem-php-license), I am
overriding it ATM. While the sources come from github, they are clearly
from the PHP Group itself and links to the sources are available at
php.net ATM. Thoughs?
Finally, I filed https://github.com/php/doc-base/issues/69 to verify
the feasibility of re-licensing such scripts upstream.
I am Ccing Ondrej and David since they most likely have opinions and
more context in the matter.