> > 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. > - when the license is applied to anything else, a bunch of additional > issues come up Agred. :-) > 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. Charles -- Said farmer Brown Who's bald On top Wish I could Rotate the crop Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1959/said_farmer_brown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature