Re: Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote: > Hi! > >> A package licensed under the PHP License must be released under >> php.net (f.e. gtk and smarty are not listed under > > Why? I don't see any reason why software licensed under PHP License must > be released under php.net. Could you explain? Because of: http://www.php.net/software.php Unless it is listed there (or in the sites linked there) a package cannot use the PHP License. >> However using the PHP License for a random extension on github and do >> not release it under pecl is not valid. > > It may make little sense, but I don't see why it's not valid as such. > But I understood we're talking about PECL packages? For non-PECL ones > BSD would be the best way I think. They refer to any package, not only PHP extensions (released under PECL or not). >> It is not derived, or any proprietary extensions would have a serious here. > > I'm not a lawyer, but I'm afraid I do not follow. Why proprietary > extensions would be in trouble? PHP License is not GPL and only requires > attached license. That provided the extension is distributed at all - > many proprietary ones are not. By "in trouble" I mean that they should not use the PHP License at all in this case and should not use it if they do not release it under php.net. > The meaning of "derived" is AFAIK a complex legal matter, so I wouldn't > be so quick to conclude what is and what isn't. We had this discussion already and the only problem in the PHP License got fixed in 3.01. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org