Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL
On 2009-04-17, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> Olly Betts <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
> Will you summarise/link or should we cc?
Good question. Since I didn't Cc: the start of the thread, I'll update
the bug with a link to this thread, and summarise the consensus if/when
one is reached.
>> * Is the quote above an accurate summary of the currently accepted
>> interpretation? (That mail is from 2003 so perhaps things have
>> changed since).
> I think it's still accurate. More recent links can be found in
Hmm, neither this nor any of the linked messages seem to talk about GPL
compatibility though - they all seem to be discussing if the PHP licence
is DFSG compatible at all, and whether it's OK for non-PHP group code.
>> * If so, is there anything which can be done other than removing
>> php5-xapian from the archive?
> Relicensing in some way. It might not be simple or even possible, but
> it seems like the only alternative I can see.
It's not possible on the Xapian side (unless/until all the "Open Muscat"
code is replaced), and it seems unlikely on the PHP side. Given others
seem to have tried and failed to do something about the PHP naming
clause, I don't feel optimistic about my own chances.
>> * Assuming php5-xapian must be removed from the archive, can the
>> xapian-bindings source package (which builds bindings for python,
>> ruby, etc too) continue to include (now unused) source code for it, or
>> do I need to prepare a special "dfsg" version of the upstream source
>> tarball without this code? (I notice Steve says "binaries for these
>> modules", which hints that source may be OK).
> http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only
> happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK.
Yes, there's no code under the PHP licence in the upstream Xapian