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

PHP License for stuff thats not PHP itself


While doing a bit of work in the NEW queue Ive seen stuff using the PHP
license (exact version doesnt matter, they differ from package to
package, take http://www.php.net/license/2_02.txt or
http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt as examples).

(3.0 in this case taken).
It starts like a random free license, 1. and 2. are OK.

3. and 4. are IMO highly questionable if not directly non-free.
With 4 you dont seem to be allowed to call it php if there is a
diff.gz... And now try to use that point on a php-foo package.

For 5. - does one really use a license that can be randomly exchanged by
any later thing? Yes, many people do use "GPL 2 or later" in their
programs, similar point, but not fully IMO.

But a big thing against using a PHP license is that it always only talks
about "PHP", "Software provided by PHP Development Team", "software made
by many individuals in behalf of PHP group", and "This software includes
the Zend Engine". Im sure that none of the php-* modules contain the
zend engine. :)

So, looking at such packages in NEW - what do you guys suggest to do?
*I* tend to go and kick them out. Go get upstream to use a sane license...

bye Joerg (that much for never asking -legal :) )
"If you are using an Macintosh e-mail program that is not from Microsoft, we
recommend checking with that particular company. But most likely other e-mail
 programs like Eudora are not designed to enable virus replication" 
   -- http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office/2001/virus_alert.asp

Attachment: pgphCAH71EUhU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: