It would be most helpful if we could make some progress on this issue. There are a handful of RC bugs whose maintainers are trying to work with their upstream authors to find resolution. In some cases the upstream authors believe that the problem should be fixed with the new PHP License. It is becoming unprofessional for us not to be able to give them a straight answer. Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter at debian-legal. Given the lack of disagreement on this issue, I would again like to request that the FTP Masters update their policy to accept PHP Group packages with the PHP License, in addition to PHP itself. Or in the absense of a willingness to do so, please step forward so that we can further this discussion and deal professionally with the upstream authors of the current RC bugs related to the PHP License. cheers, Charles -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Fry <debian@frogcircus.org> > Subject: PHP License for PHP Group packages > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:41:33 -0500 > To: ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org > Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > > FTP Masters, > > As you are well aware, the current REJECT-FAQ[1] forbids the use of the > PHP License for anything except for PHP itself. In August I contacted > the Pear Group about this[2], to no immediate avail. > > In October Joerg Jaspert opened a number of RC bugs with existing Debian > packages of Pear packages which use the PHP License (bugs 332606, > 332607, 332608, 332609, 332610, 332611, 332613, 332614, 332615, 332616, > 332617, and 332618 are still open). > > In November I sent a message to all upstream maintainers about the > situation, requesting them to change their license. Pierre Joye, a > member of the Pear Group, reported in bug #332607[3] that the Pear Group > had asked the PHP Group to modify the PHP License in order to make it > fit for use by Pear packages. Soon thereafter he announced[4] version > 3.01 of the PHP License was released, and that it should fix the > problems we were concerned with. > > Since that time there has been an ongoing discussion about the PHP > License. While many are concerned that the PHP Licence itself is not > free (even for PHP), it appears that the new PHP License can be applied > on equal grounds to both PHP and PHP Group software, thus making it as > fit for use with Pear packages as it is for PHP[5,6]. > > Given this new development, I would like to request that the FTP Masters > start accepting PHP Group packages licenced under the PHP License (at > least as long as the PHP License is still considered free enough for PHP > in Debian), or at least join the current discussion, pushing it to one > of its two logical conclusions: the acceptance of the PHP Licence as > free for PHP and PHP Group software (and an accompanying update of the > REJECT_FAQ, and the closing of the open RC bugs in Pear packages), or > the rejection of the PHP License for both PHP and PHP Group software in > Debian (and the opening of an RC bug with PHP itself, and a request to > the PHP Group to further update their license). > > thanks, > Charles > > 1. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html > 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00188.html > 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00259.html > 4. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00260.html > 5. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/12/msg00142.html > 6. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00056.html > > -- > Take a tip > For your trip > No wet brush > To soak > Your grip > Burma-Shave > http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1931/take_a_tip -- Pa acted So tickled Ma thot He was pickled He'd just tried Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1942/pa_acted
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature