> What I did is a review of the license. > While doing that, I pointed out all the issues I could find, for > completeness' sake. > I found three sets of issues: the ones that come up when > > * the license is applied to PHP itself, > * the license is applied to other software distributed by the PHP Group > * the license is applied to other software that has nothing to do with > the PHP Group (apart from the license choice, of course) Excelent. :-) Because I am currently trying to work this licensing issue out with the PHP Group, I will exclusively focus on issues related to them. I owe Pierre a follow-up email explaining the official Debian position on the PHP Group's use of the new PHP License. More specifically, I would like a formal acceptance on the part of Debian that this license will be applied equivilantly (however that is) to both PHP and the PHP Group's software. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > --- The PHP License, version 3.01 > > > > Copyright (c) 1999 - 2005 The PHP Group. All rights reserved. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > --- > > > [...] > > > > 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products > > > > derived from this software without prior written permission. For > > > > written permission, please contact group@php.net. > > > > > > This is a sort of name-change clause (permitted by DFSG#4) *if* the > > > license is applied to PHP itself. > > > It's really inappropriate for anything that is *not* PHP itself > > > (especially when the copyright holder is not the PHP Group). > > > > The question here is whether or not it is appropriate for software > > explicitely distributed by the PHP Group. > > I'm not particularly fond of clauses like the above quoted one, but it > seems to me that it does not harm for PHP itself and (possibly) for > other software distributed the PHP Group. > > I think it's inappropriate for anything else (but I'm repeating > myself...). Agreed. I just want to establish whether or not this clause will be accepted in the same manner for the PHP Group as for PHP itself. I infer from the above that this is indeed the case. > > > > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", > > > > nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written > > > > permission from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software > > > > works in conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of > > > > calling it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" > > > > > > When the license is applied to PHP itself, this starts as a > > > name-change clause, but then goes beyond and forbids an entire class > > > of names for derived works (any name having "PHP" as a substring, > > > minus some exceptions). > > > This is overreaching, IMO, and makes the clause non-free. > > > > > > This gets even worse when applied to anything that is not PHP > > > itself. > > > > Again, what about for software explicitely distributed by the PHP > > Group? > > As I said, I think the clause is non-free even for PHP itself. If this clause is non-free even for PHP itself, then Debian should take a stand on it. If it is classified as non-free for PHP then it should admitedly be classified as non-free for the PHP Group. But I maintain that it can be applied in the same way by both groups. > > > [...] > > > > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the > > > > following acknowledgment: > > > > "This product includes PHP software, freely available from > > > > <http://www.php.net/software/>". > > > > > > This clause forces redistributors to lie, *if* the license is > > > applied to anything that is neither PHP itself, nor "PHP software" > > > (actually available from <http://www.php.net/software/>). > > > OK for PHP itself and some other software, non-free for anything > > > else. > > > > Again, missing the point. > > > > These guys are trying to come up with a licence that is fit both for > > distributing PHP and PHP Group software (available at the above URL). > > > > The question for Debian is whether or not this licence is acceptable > > for the large class of Pear/Pecl modules available from php.net (from > > the PHP Group). > > The answer is that *this clause* is OK for PHP itself and other software > available from <http://www.php.net/software/> (as long as it qualifies > as "PHP software"). > But again, I'm repeating myself: I may seem to be missing the point, but > you (almost) seem to have missed my answers... :( And I, in turn, feel that you are missing my answers. Of course this is bad for anyone besides the PHP Group. I am simply trying to establish the equivilant usage of the PHP Licence within Debian by both PHP and PHP Group software. > > > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' > > > > > > Once again false for anything not provided by the PHP development > > > team. > > > > Sure, but true for stuff that is (and one could argue that anything > > from the PHP Group is). > > So, you answered yourself: this disclaimer is not an issue *when* > applied to software provided by the PHP Group. All right, then. :-) > > > Ah, I forgot the last part: I'll quote it now... > > > > > > | This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many > > > | individuals on behalf of the PHP Group. > > > > > > Again false for anything not made on behalf of the PHP Group. > > > > All right, so per your analysis, this licence seems perfectly fit for > > software distributed by the PHP Group, which is the current matter at > > hand. > > No, it does not. > I think the PHP License (version 3.01) is non-free, even when applied to > PHP itself (and other software provided by the PHP Group). That may be true, but unless Debian is willing to take a stance against PHP itself, I don't think it can take one against the PHP Group's software. > To summarize: > > - when the license is applied to PHP itself (or to other software > provided by the PHP Group), the only problematic clause is #4. Agreed. Will this issue be brought before PHP, or again accepted as has previously been the case? > - when the license is applied to anything else, a bunch of additional > issues come up Exactly. > P.S.: Please do not reply to me and Cc: the list, as I didn't asked it. > Simply reply to the list only: I would rather avoid receiving replies > *twice*. Thanks. Sorry. And please CC me on all replies, as I'm not on the list, and don't think to check this thread as often as I should. Thanks for taking them time to analyze and respond to this issue. Charles -- Toughest Whiskers In the town We hold 'em up You mow 'em down Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1953/toughest
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature