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

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status


Does anyone have any objections to my claims here? If not, then I will
request that new Pear packages using the PHP License be accepted, and
I'll close the current RC bugs against Pear packages licenced under the
PHP License if they upgrade to the most recent version.


-----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Fry <debian@frogcircus.org>
> Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:38:36 -0500
> To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Mail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org,
> 	Charles Fry <debian@frogcircus.org>
> > Maybe you missed my earlier reply to this thread, where I explain that
> > requiring that I say that what I'm distributing is available at some URL
> > really is forcing me to "lie", if I've modified it.  (I don't have a
> > strong feeling that it's non-free, just a poorly-written license.)
> I noticed that, but didn't reply since I agree that it is a minor issue.
> The clause in question is:
>    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 does not claim that everything being distributed is
> available at that URL, but rather that such software is included
> (presumably the unmodified parts).
> I do agree that this clause, and the license, are poorly written. Even
> the Pear Group recognizes that. But so far noone has been able to get
> PHP to change the PHP License any more than the few modifications which
> started this thread.
> Charles
> -- 
> Substitutes
> Are like a girdle
> They find some jobs
> They just
> Can't hurdle
> Burma-Shave
> http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1953/substitutes

Bristles scratched
His cookie's map
That's what
Made poor
Ginger snap

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: