Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Thorsten Glaser <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not,
>>> in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the
>>> interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but
>>> that distributing the original source alongside patches is okay (e.g. as
>>> 3.0 (quilt) source package). Since Debian isn't distributing source pak-
>>> kages, this does not help us. A written permission from firstname.lastname@example.org is
>>> not helpful either, because of DFSG#8.
>>Good point. (I think you're referring to section 4; correct me if I'm
>>wrong.) This would make PHP-licensed software *with PHP in the title*
>>non-free until rebranded, like firefox was until rebranded to iceweasel.
> Indeed. And seeing this, I think that Debian may ship neither the
> PHP interpreter nor anything else under PHP licence without doing
> a rebranding.
>>This would not, however, make the license non-free, it would just make
>>for some annoying rebranding, which should be much more manageable.
> It would, however, make the licence inacceptable for Debian for
> anything bearing PHP in its name, which is kinda the point of
> the PHP licence.
This is not what the license says. The license says you cannot create
a derivative project and use PHP in its name. hhvm is a derivative
work for example. Distributing php, even by back porting patches, is
not a derivative work.
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org