On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:28:57 -0500 Charles Fry wrote:
> > > 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.
> > [...]
> >
> > Did you forget about my replies?
> > I've already explained why I think that the PHP License (version
> > 3.01) is non-free:
> >
> > - when the license is applied to PHP itself (or to other software
> > provided by the PHP Group), the only problematic clause is #4.
>
> Glenn responded to this concern in a follow-up message on this thread.
> I am in agreement with him, and thus am led to conclude that the new
> version is satisfactory when applied to PHP and the PHP Group.
I would like to know why you think that clause #4 complies with the
DFSG.
As I said (and as Don Armstrong recently explained more clearly), it's a
restriction on modified works (DFSG#3) which is not allowed by DFSG#4.
[...]
> > Please don't neglect these issues. I think fixing this license is
> > very important.
>
> As do I. Unfortunately, the only mechanism I have in my hands for
> doing so is a member of the Pear Group who was willing to interface
> with the PHP guys, campaigning for license modifications. Small
> changes were grudingly made, and we need to tell him whether or not
> they are sufficient for the use of this license by the Pear Group.
> That is my current preocupation.
As you already know, I think the license is currently non-free even for
PHP itself...
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpLEuW8id41L.pgp
Description: PGP signature