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

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

debian-legal isn't the body that makes this decision, you might want


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM, James Wade <jpswade@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> There seems to be some confusion over the PHP License.
>> We had this bug report into a PEAR project which outlines that Debian
>> cannot include any projects that fall under the PHP License.
>>  * https://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=20172
>> You will find details of the reason behind it here:
>>  * https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
>>    You have a PHP add-on package (any php script/"app"/thing, not PHP
>>    itself) and it's licensed only under the standard PHP license. That
>>    license, up to the 3.x which is actually out, is not really usable
>>    for anything else than PHP itself. I've mailed our -legal list about
>>    that and got only one response, which basically supported my view on
>>    this. Basically this license talks only about PHP, the PHP Group,
>>    and includes Zend Engine, so its not applicable to anything else.
>>    And even worse, older versions include the nice ad-clause.
>>    One good solution here is to suggest a license change to your
>>    upstream, as they clearly wanted a free one. LGPL or BSD seems to be
>>    what they want
>> After a quick search, I quickly found that this isn't an isolated case...
>>  * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728196
>>  * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752530
>>  * http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=20316
>>  *
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-rc@lists.debian.org/msg362847.html
>>  * https://github.com/nicolasff/phpredis/issues/384
>> Judging by the email to legal sent almost a decade ago this situation is
>> in need of a review...
>>  * https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
>> I can't understand this line of thought in this context:
>>    GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with
>>    the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a
>>    much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as
>>    popular as possible.
>>    - http://php.net/license/
>> I also read that Rasmus Lerdorf issued a statement which said that the PHP
>> license is pretty much identical to the Apache license.
>>  * http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.devs.php
>> I've also discovered that this is not the first instance that this issue
>> has been discussed:
>>  * http://lwn.net/Articles/604630/
>> All this has raised some questions:
>> 1. Is 'The PHP License, version 3.01' an Open Source license, certified by
>> the Open Source Initiative? Their website only lists 'PHP License 3.0
>> (PHP-3.0)'.
>> 2. When was 'The PHP License, version 3.01' released?
>> 3. Can 'The PHP License, version 3.01' be used for anything other than PHP
>> itself?
>> 4. Are there any legal implications of changing a project from 'The PHP
>> License, version 3.01' to LGPL or BSD?
>> 5. Is the PHP license clear enough to ensure that it is correctly applied
>> to extensions?
>> 6. Why would the (Apache-style) PHP License be listed by Debian as a
>> 'serious violation' yet the Apache license is not?
>> Thanks.
> Hi,
> please see the thread at
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.pecl.devel/11046 and if you want to
> reply I think pecl-dev@ is a better place than php-qa@
> Most of your links are old and some of the previous problems claimed by
> debian was addressed with php license version 3.01.
> from the replies on the debian mailing lists it seems that this decision on
> dropping any project using the php license distributed outside of php-src is
> controversial to say the least.
> I've tried to start a discussion to find some kind of resolution, but most
> of the replies from php-dev side was that the current license is fine, and
> we don't need to change anything, while we didn't got any reply from the
> debian-legal (apart from the mail from Francesco Poli who explicitly stated
> that not part of the debian project and not speaking on behalf of it).
> Based on the lack of clarification and cooperation from their side, I think
> the consensus on our part will be to keep everything as-is, and at the end
> of the day, it is up to the package maintainer to decide if they take the
> advice from the debian package maintainers and change the license for their
> project.
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.

#define sizeof(x) rand()

Reply to: