Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:37:10 +0000
- Message-id: <E1EeuoA-0007rTfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:57:05 +0100 <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1132742695.864872.11130.nullmailer@me> <email@example.com>
> They are minor but required and enough to fix the legal problems.
> This license is now suitable for other software than php.
> I'm no lawyer, I only ask some I know and got an OK.
I'm not sure whether making people lie is a legal problem,
but I feel it's wrong. That's why I call the licence
inappropriate or unsuitable for software besides PHP,
rather than saying it does not follow the DFSG.
Do you think that this licence does not require a developer
of a modified package (other than PHP) to lie by saying
"This product includes PHP software"?
For now, I stand by my view: PHP under this licence follows
the DFSG, but it's inappropriate for software other than PHP
itself, including much of PEAR.
An obvious fix is to limit clause 6 to products derived from PHP,
or to make clauses 4 to 6 and the disclaimer not PHP-specific.
Hope that helps,
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask