On Jun 30, Clint Byrum <spam...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I > > And which principles would be that, exactly? > https://www.debian.org/social_contract > Specifically, we won't hide problems and Debian will remain 100% free. We would first need to acknowledge that such a problem exists.
> Unless I'm mistaken, the wording in the PHP license makes it invalid for > anybody that isn't actually the PHP project to use without making a > false claim that "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT > TEAM". The fact that ~nobody else believes this, the authors of these extentions among them, indeed suggests that you are mistaken. Here you can see the php-memcache upstream clarifying that they consider you wrong and that they are not going to change the license: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=67517 . This is one of the critically important extensions. > It is also GPL incompatible due to restrictions it places on the > licensee's activities and the word PHP. I do not think that this is being contended. > > I suggest mimicking distributions that have real money and real lawyers, > > since probably they have a better idea than we do about the legal risks > > for themselves and their users. > That's quite the opposite of what I would suggest. Such distributions > may actually feel that they can withstand any damages that PHP/Zend can > claim against them, and their brands depend on them taking care of their > end users, but even if they didn't, they could also absorb any damage > those users could claim. Sorry, this is not how the real world works: corporations the size of Red Hat tend to not knowingly engage in copyright violations or they would be destroyed by the punitive damages. Also, I do not believe that any Linux distributor ever offered an indemnifying clause for copyright infringement. The obvious example here (even if it is about patents and not copyright) is Red Hat and mp3 decoders. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
