[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages



On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:11:43 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0?
> 
> The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright
> shows some pieces that still use the old one.  I havn't looked to see
> how much.

Yes, it seems that srclib\apr-util\test\testdbm.c is still under the old
Apache Software License, Version 1.1 (I'm referring to Apache2 shipped
with sarge, for the record).
However that file is Copyrighted by The Apache Software Foundation: I
wonder why they haven't switched to the new license version 2.0...
Maybe they just forgot to update that file: I think it's worth asking
upstream to relicense it...

Please let me know, if you find any other issue in Apache2, besides this
one and the ones I pointed out in bug#340538...

> 
> > If this is case, the most 'critical' package that still has this
> > kind of non-freeness seems to be php...
> 
> That's a matter of perspective, of course--Subversion is more
> important to me.

Ah, yes: subversion is another package with a license that should be
fixed.

[...]
> > And yes, I think it's a battle worth fighting, 'cause a DFSG-free
> > PHP would benefit Free Software and Debian users, but PHP is not
> > DFSG-free, currently...
> 
> You're saying "this is onerous enough to make it non-free" (aka "it's
> a battle worth fighting") "because it's non-free".  That's not a very
> persuasive argument.  :)

Mmmmh, maybe I misunderstood what "it's a battle worth fighting" was
intended to mean and actually meant.
I apologize if this caused confusion (I'm not a native English
speaker...).

I thought it meant something like "it's worth trying and fixing this
issue that some people consider minor".
I stated that, *since* IMHO this issue is enough to make PHP non-free,
and having PHP in main is important (it would benefit Free Software and
Debian users), then it's worth trying and persuading upstream to fix the
license...

I hope I clarified what I meant.


-- 
    :-(   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: pgpbqHGZiS5t4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: