Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> 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:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> 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
> sense.)
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.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: