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

Re: [PHP4BETA] License concerns

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Sascha Schumann wrote:

> There are some concerns expressed in the slashdot discussion
> forum about the new license scheme.
> One AC writes
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm using PHP3 (and liking it very much), and some of the new
> PHP4 OO features sound very nice and really useful. But unless
> PHP4 may also be used under the terms of the traditional GNU GPL,
> I can no longer use GDBM with PHP (which I also do a lot). 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> GDBM is licensed under GPL, so it might be the case that linking
> with non-GPL code (such as PHP4) is prohibited (that's what the
> LGPL license is for). 
> Which other extensions libraries are licensed under GPL?

I now checked these libraries, and could not find any licenced under GPL,
but GPL may be not the only license the QPL is not compatible with.
For example the xml library (expat) is MPL, I don't know how QPL relates
to it, I'm not familiar with these licensing stuff.

Btw I have another concern with the PHP4 licence itself:

  4. The PHP Group reserves the right to modify the PHP license at
     any time and without prior notice, as long as the changes keep
         the free and open source nature of PHP.

does this mean rectroactively changing the license of already distributed
copies of the software ? If yes, then it may clash with the open source
definition (I'm expecting comments here from people who know DFSG issues
more than me), if not, then this paragraph is not needed, since the
copyright holder can change the license anyway.


Ps. I'm CC-ing the debian-legal mailing list, people there are quite
familiar with open source licences and problems like this

Reply to: