> On Mar 7, 2020, at 12:09, Andreas Heigl <andr...@heigl.org> wrote: > > Hey all > > Am 07.03.20 um 13:20 schrieb Christoph M. Becker: >> On 05.03.2020 at 17:46, Ben Ramsey wrote: >> >>>> I’ve submitted a formal request for “legacy approval” to the OSI >>>> license-review list, according to their policies. >>>> >>>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html >>> >>> >>> Here's a question from the OSI list that I cannot answer on my own: >>> >>> >>>>> If this version is approved, will the steward voluntarily deprecate >>>>> version 3.0, and if not, and if 3.01 is approved, should 3.0 be >>>>> involuntarily deprecated? >>> >>> >>> The “steward” is the PHP Group. I know that Rasmus, Zeev, and Sascha are >>> still active on this list, but I don’t know what the protocol is for making >>> this decision. Would this need a simple RFC for the internals community to >>> vote on? If that’s the route, I’m happy to put together a draft. >> >> Could some member(s) of the PHP Group please comment on this. > > Would this be a good point in time to to question the current state of > the PHP-Group as defined in https://www.php.net/credits.php? > > If the PHP-Group as a loose connection of veterans (used in the best > sense here) is responsible for decisions like the one at hand here we > might have to think about how that group is put together. Especially > when of the ten people in the group only 3 seem to be still active. > > It looks like a bad idea to wait until no one is active any more and we > need response from that group... > > Please note that this is not about breaking down the group or > questioning the responsibilities (even though those as well seem to be > rather loosely defined). This is merely about whether there should be > some fresh blood in the group to reduce the bus-factor.
IMO, the Group is the copyright holder of the PHP source code, in much the same way I’m the copyright holder of the source code for my open source libraries. If I stop working on my libraries and others take over, that doesn’t change the original copyright holder, and folks don’t need me to make decisions about the code. That said, it’s only when we want to make changes to the copyright itself, or if there are challenges to the copyright and the trademark (in the loose sense of the term) “PHP,” that the PHP Group as an entity needs to get involved. I say all this to say this: I don’t think changes need to be made to the PHP Group, whether for fresh blood or the bus-factor, unless we think of the Group as more than the copyright holder. Since this discussion comes from the need to make a decision about immaterial changes to the PHP License files on the website, I don’t think we necessarily need anyone from the Group to weigh-in here. However, in terms of the “steward” of the license, the OSI views the PHP Group as the steward, since that is what the License itself says, but they’re not calling for any changes to the license. Rather, they’re just assessing it, since it was an oversight that version 3.01 of the License was never submitted for OSI approval 14 years ago. Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
