PHP PEAR Questions and Answers - Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP License

Author

Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP License

Ian Eure

2005-08-24, 3:55 am

Pierre Habouzit

2005-08-24, 3:55 am

Joe Stump

2005-08-24, 3:55 am

I think we should switch to a LGPL or BSD style license. Those make =20
the most sense for library level code IMO. What does CPAN do?

--Joe

On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:38 PM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

> Le Mer 24 Ao=FBt 2005 06:25, Ian Eure a =E9crit :
>
>
> just for the record, it's not because it has been done, that it has
> been done *right*.
>
> Though, I find your interpretation of the clause (6) a bit light. =20=

> You
> would be correct if it was worded :
>
> 6. Redistributions of any form ***OF THE PHP SOURCES/SOFTWARE***
> whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product
> includes PHP, freely available from <http://www.php.net/>".
>
> but without the part in ***...***, semantically, "Redistributions =20
> of any
> form" refers to the package that is under that license, not only PHP.
>
>
> I mean your point is invalid, since an annotated version of that
> clause is :
> 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> acknowledgment: ...
>
> =BB If your redistribute the PEAR (or else) package released under
> =BB that license, you have to state that ....
>
> ... "This product includes PHP, freely available from
> <http://www.php.net/>".
>
> =BB ... this package include PHP (blah blah blah). Which would be
> =BB incorrect if PHP sources weren't bundled to the package. I assume
> =BB you should'nt sate sth wrong just for beeing license-clean ;)
>
>
> I understand *you* won't retain such a fallacious argument to harm
> debian, though, which is important is not only *how* an upstream
> understand/apply/... its own license, but what is written inside it,
> and what it means objectively. And I'm not comfortable with (6) =20
> because
> it misses the fact that clause 6 is *only* dedicated to the
> redistribution of PHP under any form (and not to the current package).
>
> --=20
> =B7O=B7 Pierre Habouzit
> =B7=B7O =
madcoder@debian.org
> OOO http://=20
> www.madism.org
>

--
Joseph C. Stump
joe@joestump.net
http://www.joestump.net

Jon Parise

2005-08-24, 3:55 am

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:59:48PM -0700, Joe Stump wrote:

> I think we should switch to a LGPL or BSD style license. Those make
> the most sense for library level code IMO. What does CPAN do?

Who is "we" and should be switched? The PHP, Apache, BSD, and LGPL
licenses are all approved licenses for PEAR and PECL packages:

http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.licenses.php
http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20040402-la.php

I understand the basis of this thread is regarding some potentially
inappropriate clauses (with regard to PHP script code) in the PHP
license, but package developers have always been free to license their
code under an alternate approved license.

--
Jon Parise (jon of php.net) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/)

Charles Fry

2005-08-25, 6:56 pm

> > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
> Also correct. I believe this applies to the PHP trademark. If there is a PEAR
> trademark registered, we could just replace "PHP" with "PEAR." If not, just
> eliminate them.

I don't think that it makes sense to replace PHP with PEAR, because most
of the software packages that are being distributed are not named "PEAR"
and thus don't run the risk of having a derivitive named "PEAR" that is
mistaken for the original.

My recommendation would thus be to eliminate them (at which point you
are basically left with the BSD License).

> I feel that your interpretation of those clauses is overbroad and incorrect.
> The clause does not state that the product must bundle PHP, but that it must
> affix a notice to the effect that it includes it. Aside from being completely
> inapplicable to PHP-licensed PEAR packages, the copyright notice itself
> serves as the fulfillment of that clause.

This has been addressed by others, but it sounds incorrect to affix a
notice to the effect that PHP is included when it is not.

> I do think the license should be fixed (or a more appropriate derivative
> created for PEAR packages), but I don't think the license in any way
> prohibits Debian packaging of PEAR or PEAR packages; nor has it stopped such
> packaging in the past. See: php-pear-log, php-db, php-auth, php-net-socket,
> etc etc etc.

As for Debian, whether or not you agree with it, this issue will prevent
all PHP applications that use the PHP License from being added to
Debian:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...8/msg00011.html

Given that you and all others who have weighed in on this issue agree
that the license should be fixed, I invite the PEAR Group to now take
the initiative to address this issue in the manner that they find most
appropriate. :-)

Charles

--
It's a good
Old Spanish custom
Take your mug
And brush
And bust 'em
Burma-Shave
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1943/its_a_good

Sponsored Links