Re: PHP License for stuff thats not PHP itself
Scripsit Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>
> http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt as examples).
> 3. and 4. are IMO highly questionable if not directly non-free.
> With 4 you dont seem to be allowed to call it php if there is a
> diff.gz... And now try to use that point on a php-foo package.
I agree. There was a thread about those to clauses starting at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00222.html>,
with a follow-up thread the following month.
An email was sent to the PHP people, but I don't remember anything
about a reply being received.
> For 5. - does one really use a license that can be randomly exchanged by
> any later thing? Yes, many people do use "GPL 2 or later" in their
> programs, similar point, but not fully IMO.
Many people do this, apparently without really thinking. When graphviz
was freed there was some unease that upstream had chosen a license
that IBM (which is not connected with the software at all) can
randomly exchange with any later thing.
> But a big thing against using a PHP license is that it always only talks
> about "PHP", "Software provided by PHP Development Team", "software made
> by many individuals in behalf of PHP group", and "This software includes
> the Zend Engine".
It is not clear to me that the acknowledgement below the disclaimer is
part of the license text proper. It is not one of the components whose
reproduction is explicitly required by (2).
> So, looking at such packages in NEW - what do you guys suggest to do?
> *I* tend to go and kick them out.
I would probably let it pass, being the big softie I am. The false
claim in (6) seems to be the only possible blocker that does not also
apply to PHP itself. However, I acknowledge that it's a borderline
case, and IMHO it would be quite within your reasonable discretion to
kick it.
--
Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."
Reply to: