Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL
Olly Betts <olly@survex.com> wrote:
> For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
Will you summarise/link or should we cc?
[...]
> Steve Langasek:
>
> There are several other PHP extensions in circulation that use GPLed
> libraries, some of them distributed with the PHP source itself. (The
> readline extension is one example.) Binaries for these modules can't be
> distributed in Debian, but that doesn't mean you can't write a PHP
> extension for a GPL library and distribute it on your own.
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/7867
[...]
> * 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
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00117.html
The FSF seems to support the general idea of GPL-incompatibility in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> * 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. See
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/reporting-fixing-violations
for a helpful guide.
> * 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.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: