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