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

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

> > I am just trying to insist that if we accept this license as valid for
> > PHP, then I don't see how we can reject it for use by the Pear Group.
> > Does that part sound reasonable?
> Nobody should be claiming that a license is free for the original
> PHP, but not when anyone else uses it.  We require permission to
> modify the work, and the result of doing so is something other than
> PHP, by someone other than the Pear Group.  If you can't modify the
> work and have something that is still free, the original is not
> free, either.
> If you're asking "even if the license is non-free, can I close bugs
> against other packages since nobody has yet filed against PHP itself",
> the answer, of course, is no.  (I'm sure that's not what you intended,
> but that's what it seems to come down to.)
> Overall, I don't see any strong feeling on this list that this license
> is non-free, and that's a reasonable rationale for closing these bugs.
> (Whether anyone has filed similar bugs against PHP, however, is not.)

The one missing piece is the question of now adjusting the policy of
NEW-Queue acceptance with respect to the PHP License:


Currently all packages besides PHP which use that license are rejected.
Per the recent modifications and ensuing discussion, I propose that Pear
Group software using the PHP License also be accepted.


Was such a boom
They passed
The bride
And kissed the groom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: