Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On 07/29/2014 03:16 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
> Ferenc Kovacs <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I've find it a bit disturbing, that ftpmasters can make a decision on legal
>> grounds(which is the probably the highest priority for debian as far as I'm
>> concerned), without any backing from debian-legal
> debian-legal has no authority to decide anything. It is just a
> mailing list. We can discuss things here day and night and
> ftp-masters can ignore it.
> With that said, debian-legal can be useful when issues are clear-cut.
> For example, if someone asks if the Apache 2.0 license is compatible
> with the GPL (no for GPL 2.0, yes for GPL 3.0). Think of debian-legal
> as the secretary for ftp-masters. We can sometimes divine what they
> are thinking, but the final word belongs to ftp-masters.
> In any case, in the interest of making this email constructive, my
> take on the PHP license is that it does need to be fixed. From
> ftp-masters REJECT-FAQ, they also think so. So my advice would be to
> just use a well known, existing license and be done with it. Judging
> from the existing PHP license, the closest thing would be the 3 clause
> BSD license
> Apache 2.0 would also be a good choice.
> Now, I understand that changing licenses is a huge chore, and the
> benefits can sometimes be intangible. The main benefit is that you
> will never have to deal with us again ;)
We will not be changing the license to Apache 2.0
I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from *.php.net
carrying the PHP license. The license talks about "PHP Software" which
we define as software you get from/via *.php.net. We support external
repos such as github, but they are still linked back to php.net via
their pecl.php.net entries, for example. For things that aren't
distributed via pecl.php.net, pear.php.net or www.php.net itself, I can
see the argument, but those are not projects we can do anything about.