Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:23:24PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >>> > 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"?
>> >>> Perhaps the PHP folks subscribe to the view that PHP scripts are
>> >>> derivative works of PHP.
>> >> Ye ghods, I'd hope not. That would be similar to believing that this
>> >> message is a derivative of the English Grammar manual I read in school.
>> > Or that all non-trivial Emacs Lisp code must be licensed under the
>> > GPL. This position is not *that* unusual...
>> Not being unusual doesn't make it sensible or correct.
> Just to take a guess at where this strange claim might have originated:
Statements like this one would seem to have something to do with it:
> The FSF (from what I understand) claims that binaries linked against
> GPL libraries are derivative works of the library, because the
> resulting binary has pieces of the GPL software in it. This isn't
> obviously true with C libraries, which has led to a lot of debate
> around the topic, but the claim isn't entirely unreasonable.
> They do not claim (again, AFAIK) that the *source* of the program
> using it is a derivative work of the library it uses.
> "PHP scripts are derivative works of PHP" sounds like someone
> misinterpreted the FSF's claims, and ended up believing that the
> source of a program is a derivative work of its libraries. (That,
> unlike the FSF's claims, seems to make very little reasonable
For compiled languages they do not make this claim. For interpreted
languages they appear to be claiming exactly this. The grounds for
making such a distinction, or how to make it, are beyond me.