> > 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: http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html 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. Charles -- Burma-Shave Was such a boom They passed The bride And kissed the groom http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1950/burma_shave
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature