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

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

On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:59:11 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote:

> Francesco Poli writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
> > Wait! This license version is already obsolete!
> Thanks for pointing that out.

You're welcome!

> > Please revise your draft in light of the current
> > PHP License, version 3.01:
> > http://php.net/license/3_01.txt
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00271.html
> Done - see below.

Good, many thanks for doing so.

> > For the record, my own personal concerns about the PHP License are
> > described in
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html
> I hope I have dealt with these adequately in my draft below.

Please see my comments below.

> (Your point about the overreach of perhaps forbidding `php' in the
> names of addons isn't a legal one AFAICT, so I haven't asked anything
> about it in my draft.  It doesn't appear that the ftpmasters agree
> with your point.)

You're right that the FTP Masters seem to disagree with me on the
non-freeness of PHP itself: I think that clause 4 of the PHP License
version 3.01 makes PHP non-free, while FTP Masters seem to have issues
with the PHP License only when it is applied to software not provided
by the PHP Group.

I think you are also right that legal advice would not help to clarify
this specific freeness point.

> Draft question for SFLC:
> I. Requirement to perhaps-falsely acknowledge:
> Paragraph 6 of the main licence text requires this notice:
>    "This product includes PHP software, freely available from
>      <http://www.php.net/software/>".

I would also add some mention of the final disclaimers (the text in
capital letters and the text under the separation lines in the
license), which also risk to become false or irrilevant for software
not written by (or on behalf of) the PHP Group.

> This is probably unproblematic for PHP itself.  However, most PHP
> addons are also distributed under the PHP licence.  The worry is that
> putting that statement in the copyright information for a PHP addon
> package is might be making a false statement, since (i) the package

Probably    s/is might/might/

> itself does not include PHP and (ii) the addon may not in fact be
> available via that URL.

 fsck is a four letter word...
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpsQ6BSpkBGo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: