Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Ángel González dixit:
> Please remember that we are just talking about changes that Debian
> itself may want to perform (so it doesn't require a renaming which
> would be bad both for PHP and Debian users).
Right, but Debian probably (though it’s up to Ondřej Surý, the
maintainer; there is no central instance) would not want to accept
a licence that says “you may keep the name if your patches are
only this small, and if they get bigger or disagree with what
we say, you may not keep the name”.
There is innovation, writing of new code, and patching code when
the packager disagrees with upstream (or – worse – when tech-ctte
says so because some *other* maintainer within Debian is important
enough for them to judge to not force him to fix the bugs in *his*
package instead, and so the packager is in the minority and forced
to deviate from upstream, so that the package still fits into the
distro).
Also, Debian is a bit of promise to downstreams. I am not sure (I
did not specifically look at this part), but I think downstreams
should be able to not need to look at how _much_ patching the
licence allows…
>> Looking at a BSDb> as well,
> I count only 20 :S (all minor things, some that should have been done at PHP)
There are some hidden in ../{core,extensions}/patches/
> (As an aside, it's sad in general to check package patches, since most of them
> should really be at upstreamb
Right. It’s been problematic (and doesn’t scale well when
you’re a small project) to get patches for a non-mainstream
OS into upstream (though the situation did get better over
the years). In fact, most of our patches are carried over
from OpenBSD, who also either did not submit them or did
not have luck with that. (Though their relationship to both
their upstreams and downstreams is a bit special anyway.)
>> though the licence information there is set to say
>> that binaries may not be redistributed.
> You are creating the patches with a license not allowing binary
> redistribution?? You leave me speechless.
No, what I meant is: the port metadata says that we may not
distribute the binary packages.
It’s your licence which forbids that ;-)
> PS: The cvs daemon at anoncvs.mirbsd.org doesn't seem to be listening on its
> IPv4 interface (81.169.181.30).
There is no cvs dæmon, it’s anonymous CVS over ssh. (Nobody
sane uses pserver – it’s susceptible to MITM and all.)
(And yes, I’m gonna update that thing some day… but for what
I’m currently using it, that old beast serves well enough…)
bye,
//mirabilos
--
(gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use,
there is no reason to consider using that package)
-- Thomas E. Dickey on the Lynx mailing list, about OpenSSL
Reply to: