Re: Re-Releasing PEAR packages under the BSD license

Hi again, I suggested to fix the recent addition in the FAQ of incorrect comments on "aggregation" vs. "combination" of code under different licenses (http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=9630); I was replied: [2006-12-23 12:26 UTC] mj at php dot net (Martin Jansen) "This no documentation problem but something that needs to be discussed on pear-dev." I think this was extensively discussed and agreed upon. If there're still questions I'd be glad to bring precisions. What more is needed to get the FAQ fixed?? -- Sylvain PS: btw the bug tracker's CAPTCHA looks broken :/ On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:06:54PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 04:00:27PM -0800, Justin Patrin wrote: > > You may have noticed that the Structures_DataGrid people already > > re-released their packages with a new license. I don't think that > > there's going to be an across-the-board license change as, even if the > > copyright to the PEAR Group stands (which is debatable) they tend not > > to take such broad sweeping actions themselves as late. > > This is good news :) > > You may want to update the FAQ again btw: > http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.devs.php > > I guess I'll give a hand to mBSD'd replacements such as QuickForm2 and > this should solve my problem. > > -- > Sylvain > > > > >Given this last message ("This is inherently an issue with the GPL"), > > >I take it we agree there's incompatibility. > > > > > > > I am attempting to move to a different license on one of my packages, > > but one of my co-developers has pointed out something interesting. > > Apparently a while ago there was some discussion about licenses which > > concluded that the PHP License was better for PEAR packages than the > > LGPL and he's annoyed by the back and forth here. > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 08:25:06PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:58:40AM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > >> > Sylvain Beucler wrote: > > >> > > I think that there is an issue, admittedly not obvious, but that, > > >> > > using PHP professionally, I care about. > > >> > > > > >> > > Whether you agree or not, in any case, I still think it would clarify > > >> > > the situation to re-release PHPL'd packages under the modified BSD. > > >> > > > >> > Then we'll have to agree to disagree. This is inherently an issue with > > >> > the GPL, not with the PHP license. The Apache/PHP license allows > > >> > derived works with only a single restriction: use your own brand. I > > >> > really don't want to drop that as we have a constant battle trying to > > >> > fight perceived software quality issues and when software we don't > > >> > control use our brand it becomes impossible to manage. > > >> > > >> > > >> Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: this isn't about PHP. > > >> > > >> > > >> I have nothing to say about the PHP license as used by PHP. As we just > > >> pointed it doesn't impact php apps under the GPL, thanks to the GPL > > >> explicit exception about the underlying programming language. > > >> > > >> I know that there were requests for changes in the PHP License itself > > >> in the past but that's a separate issue and I'm not involved with > > >> that. > > >> > > >> > > >> Now, when applied to a PEAR package, the branding clauses of the PHP > > >> License, besides being pointless in that context, cause > > >> incompatibility with the GNU GPL. > > >> > > >> Since PHPL'd packages are not part of the PHP language itself, that > > >> GPL exception does not apply, hence the incompatibility. > > >> > > >> > > >> So, I'm simply asking whether those PEAR packages under the PHPL, and > > >> owned by the PHP group, could be re-released under the mBSD to ease > > >> their use in GPL'd apps.