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

Re: Copyright issues GPL-PHP license

On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:43:37 +0200
David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to partecipate to the Utnubu [1] project, which aims at providing
> Debian with packages already available for *buntu. So, reading the list of
> missing packages [2], I've successfully packaged "nanoweb".
> There already is a bug open [3], but if you read over there, there are (were)
> some copyright issues. In fact, the program itself is released under GPLv2 (and
> later), while it is based on PHP, which is release under "The PHP License" [4]
> and, as regards the "Zend Component", "The Zend Engine License" [5].
> Now, as Steve Langasek pointed out in that bug report:
> "PHP is GPL-incompatible. You cannot distribute GPL software together with
> GPL-incompatible software that it depends on without a license exemption from
> the copyright holder of the GPL software."
> What do you think about this?

I would have thought that Steve's statement on that is clear - I
wouldn't expect many sponsors to disagree. The question is whether the
package merely uses PHP or whether it links into PHP. From my reading
of the bug report, nanoweb is not merely a PHP application.

I also share Vorlon's opinion about the package as a whole:

> In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP is
> utterly abominable, an example of total programming putrifaction.  I
> expect this code to be so inherently unmaintainable that its very
> presence would warrant an RC bug.  As a DD and as a user of PHP, I
> would ask that this package not be uploaded to Debian.

As a fellow DD and as a user of PHP, I second that.

> Should I file an ITP (the package is ready)?

No. The package is not ready, it is not distributable and has no place
in Debian. Please don't dismiss vorlon's comments out-of-hand.

> Should I contact debian-legal (I'll look in their archives before)?

No. I would not bother packaging this for Debian and I would definitely
not sponsor it. I suspect that debian-legal would agree with vorlon's

You cannot blindly take all Ubuntu packages and assume that they can be
distributed in Debian.

Find another package - Ubuntu are welcome to this one. If they want it
they can keep it, I see no reason to burden Debian with nanoweb, even
if the copyright issues could be resolved.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpCTqEvMGtpx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: