On Tue, 27 May 2014 14:18:05 +0200 Ondřej Surý wrote: > Hi Debian Legal, Hello! > > I would like to raise the question of PHP License on PHP PEAR/PECL > extensions again (<87oe86iy0x.fsf@vorlon.ganneff.de>). > > There are quite a lot of extensions packaged under PHP License 3.01: [...] > and there seems to be some people > filling RC bugs on PHP extensions (#728196). > > And upstream authors generally don't care much since they don't > understand the problem. This is a matter of better explaining the issue to upstream authors, I would say... > > I do agree that packaging a non-PHP software under PHP license would be > silly, but personally I also don't really see a problem with software > distributed via pear.php.net and pecl.php.net (e.g. PHP extensions). Personally, I *do* see problems with PHP-licensed software other than PHP itself. Actually, I am personally [1] convinced that even PHP itself is non-free, but that's another story... [1] beware: I am not a member of the Debian Project, I'm just an external contributor, and I am aware that the FTP Masters disagree with me on this point [...] > Could we perhaps amend that rule to REJECT only the non-PHP > (non-PEAR/PECL) related software? Taking what I said above into account, it should be no surprise that I do *not* think this rule should be further relaxed. This is my own personal opinion. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpyNtT5LtslO.pgp
Description: PGP signature