Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On 07/08/2014 02:19 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:16:37PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you feel like it). It's my reading that this is the case if you rename your project to not contain PHP (if it does), which would otherwise be violation of the license. / | 4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor | may PHP appear in their name, without prior written permission | from gr...@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in | conjunction with PHP by saying Foo for PHP instead of calling | it PHP Foo or phpfoo \ Yes. The only restriction is to not use php-* for derivative packages. That's very close to what we have with Firefox^WIceweasel. Maybe we shouldn't have named all of our PEAR package php-*, but pear-* at least, to avoid the issue. Though I'm not going to be the one working on all the renaming ... :/ Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53bbfb43.5040...@debian.org
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On 06/26/2014 07:41 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: The initial conclusion came from debian-legal, and I think it's futile to discuss that with ftp-masters when I already done that. And as you can see in the initial conversation in the bug report I was against the removal, but in the end they have convinced me that licensing anything not-being-PHP under PHP License is just no-goer. O. It all depends what you consider not-being-PHP. To some degree, modules in pear.php.net are part of PHP, which is why we call the packages php-*. This is also upstream PHP (the language) view on the mater as well. Also, previously, it was the case that anything lower than PHP license version 3.01 was not acceptable, but the PHP license was ok for PEAR modules. This was already discussed at the time (I believe), or at least, that's what I've been told by the FTP masters when uploading (that I'm sure). I do not agree that we just go back, and change our mind on the licensing policy, after we did all the work. This kind of decision has to be firm, and we should hold to it. Otherwise, it's a horrible loss of time for everyone. Please let me know what changed, and what part of the license is not acceptable anymore. On 06/26/2014 07:53 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: Don't shoot the messenger, I just did the dirty work. I don't agree you're just the messenger. You've filed the RC bugs, no? I have discussed this with ftp-masters and release team before filling the bugs, arguing heavily in disagreement with ftp-master's REJECT FAQ - the PHP License REJECT is there since 2005. That is simply not truth. Anything with PHP license 3.01 has been, but if it's = 3.01, it has always been considered OK, at least for pear.php.net modules. I believe there's a confusion inside the FTP master team about this. On 06/27/2014 02:17 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Thus, while we're in a reasonably good position to convince Upstream to fix that problem, filing RC bugs and thus making PHP unuseable in Debian is certainly going to be regarded as typical Debian principles-above-all overkill but unlikely to be helpful to anybody. Well put, but I'd have say it with stronger words. On 06/27/2014 02:27 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: If anyone has a better way to safeguard those to whom we distribute software, please do speak up about it. I for one think our users choose Debian because they can be sure their rights are being looked after. Let's do what we can to help upstream rectify the situation, but lets also be honest with our users while they respond. If we are to be honest, then we should *not* change our mind 10 years after we've accepted some licensing. PEAR modules have been accepted with PHP license 3.01, and we shall continue to keep them in Debian. I have a less strong opinion about anything non-PEAR module and PHP license though (I'm not sure about this, in all honesty), and I care less about them anyway. On 06/27/2014 10:43 AM, Chris Bannister wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to work tomorrow, and for roughly the same reasons. Because there is nothing you can do? No, because statistically, it's as if it was impossible that such a cataclysmic event occurs. On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: 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. IMO, you are mistaking indeed. Anyone contributing a module to pear.php.net PEAR channel can be considered from the PHP development team. That's a question of view, and we've accepted that view, so why should we go back after we have accepted packages based on this? This is also the view of upstream PHP (the language) and upstream PEAR module contributors, as much as one can tell. If you do not agree, please point to anyone who expressed otherwise. On 07/01/2014 06:58 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: JFTR the http://www.php.net/software page claims that software distributed from php.net, pecl.php.net and pear.php.net distributes software under PHP License[1]. This was also claimed in some private emails between me and PHP folks[2]. My conclusion is that the PHP folks do agree that the PHP License cannot be used for software outside *.php.net, but it's perfectly OK for stuff distributed from *.php.net. I'm very surprised of the circonvolutions to finally have this outcome, which we already knew about: it's been like this in Debian for YEARS. On 07/01/2014 06:58 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: If there's no wild disagreement from FTP Masters on this in couple of days I will just start closing bugs on packages distributed from *.php.net. I agree that this is what should be done, yes. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: 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. IMO, you are mistaking indeed. Anyone contributing a module to pear.php.net PEAR channel can be considered from the PHP development team. That's a question of view, and we've accepted that view, so why should we go back after we have accepted packages based on this? This is also the view of upstream PHP (the language) and upstream PEAR module contributors, as much as one can tell. If you do not agree, please point to anyone who expressed otherwise. One question / consideration: Even assuming that all contributions accepted into modules hosted on pear.php.net are considered automatically from the PHP Development Team, and thus that the statement in the license would remain accurate, wouldn't this mean that it wouldn't be possible to make local modifications to a module found there and distribute them by other means (e.g. even within one's own organization) without either making a false statement in the license or violating the license? If it would mean that, then wouldn't this license be considered non-free? - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTulf7AAoJEASpNY00KDJrwQAP/RpzgNpYlYULpqOyJK/uwbza MrT+23bQ/1OLy5KaGdPYvWUGpXw2JHxJaMEBchLTVjL2c3I+mgBW9kZ/qDalwpdf 36KZxdhOJi8bHCmbd13rOYu9pZr+DFLCivt63L3xRaz4V0RnO0ijbJYvuu+VNiL9 mABrxbQNo/hDR6NnpFUiw1Ze09JnN0dbrRUhOE0uPDvESd9wusSkvh36hy63WEvi uaP+zUiGA2rGlB5WFRV1CVJH0gsLtSJKSbvSdk5hJGs7EbZjrE63jCnaGiNohufj X5JFuzWuD2moiLIg/3kaZ6mj8zbEtP9TR4ND01NnRrTDpC2vO8Rkc0HsmOPXgKQ5 EFBgKsAp0XWy/T+rUltUppQEHq8bX22yQYjN/b6LFA4DzBmkBpGDCIWK+Q8W+Ewq tm0UtpK+5se7U0M6xtb0E+VpFC80KnC1bUFal0ipebR7YCXEXI9ESnjZ2IIE0nLW BWmUD6n+3zNzDVmqn8gNCReVUAAave0rYxwvZlvFDJVAz6ZRlZpLLtUdPWOmmtAg 0C9RKSHCL4D25VgsCAm/2T5DtvBeGbDudPzzFuROuCqtnnXiDDYkGaBOQv7Ebohd pQbXIXEqpImirEAX2fvJGpMSy+xnlZO3XaranRUYLKN64+m4gYsALuU2OR5rO4Ew yGDyB6SltUMNJWB+rM0D =Xij/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ba57fb.5070...@fastmail.fm
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Unless its renamed AFAICT. T On Jul 7, 2014 4:19 AM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: 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. IMO, you are mistaking indeed. Anyone contributing a module to pear.php.net PEAR channel can be considered from the PHP development team. That's a question of view, and we've accepted that view, so why should we go back after we have accepted packages based on this? This is also the view of upstream PHP (the language) and upstream PEAR module contributors, as much as one can tell. If you do not agree, please point to anyone who expressed otherwise. One question / consideration: Even assuming that all contributions accepted into modules hosted on pear.php.net are considered automatically from the PHP Development Team, and thus that the statement in the license would remain accurate, wouldn't this mean that it wouldn't be possible to make local modifications to a module found there and distribute them by other means (e.g. even within one's own organization) without either making a false statement in the license or violating the license? If it would mean that, then wouldn't this license be considered non-free? - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTulf7AAoJEASpNY00KDJrwQAP/RpzgNpYlYULpqOyJK/uwbza MrT+23bQ/1OLy5KaGdPYvWUGpXw2JHxJaMEBchLTVjL2c3I+mgBW9kZ/qDalwpdf 36KZxdhOJi8bHCmbd13rOYu9pZr+DFLCivt63L3xRaz4V0RnO0ijbJYvuu+VNiL9 mABrxbQNo/hDR6NnpFUiw1Ze09JnN0dbrRUhOE0uPDvESd9wusSkvh36hy63WEvi uaP+zUiGA2rGlB5WFRV1CVJH0gsLtSJKSbvSdk5hJGs7EbZjrE63jCnaGiNohufj X5JFuzWuD2moiLIg/3kaZ6mj8zbEtP9TR4ND01NnRrTDpC2vO8Rkc0HsmOPXgKQ5 EFBgKsAp0XWy/T+rUltUppQEHq8bX22yQYjN/b6LFA4DzBmkBpGDCIWK+Q8W+Ewq tm0UtpK+5se7U0M6xtb0E+VpFC80KnC1bUFal0ipebR7YCXEXI9ESnjZ2IIE0nLW BWmUD6n+3zNzDVmqn8gNCReVUAAave0rYxwvZlvFDJVAz6ZRlZpLLtUdPWOmmtAg 0C9RKSHCL4D25VgsCAm/2T5DtvBeGbDudPzzFuROuCqtnnXiDDYkGaBOQv7Ebohd pQbXIXEqpImirEAX2fvJGpMSy+xnlZO3XaranRUYLKN64+m4gYsALuU2OR5rO4Ew yGDyB6SltUMNJWB+rM0D =Xij/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ba57fb.5070...@fastmail.fm
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On 07/07/2014 04:19 PM, The Wanderer wrote: On 07/07/2014 03:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: 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. IMO, you are mistaking indeed. Anyone contributing a module to pear.php.net PEAR channel can be considered from the PHP development team. That's a question of view, and we've accepted that view, so why should we go back after we have accepted packages based on this? This is also the view of upstream PHP (the language) and upstream PEAR module contributors, as much as one can tell. If you do not agree, please point to anyone who expressed otherwise. One question / consideration: Even assuming that all contributions accepted into modules hosted on pear.php.net are considered automatically from the PHP Development Team, and thus that the statement in the license would remain accurate, wouldn't this mean that it wouldn't be possible to make local modifications to a module found there and distribute them by other means (e.g. even within one's own organization) without either making a false statement in the license or violating the license? If it would mean that, then wouldn't this license be considered non-free? Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you feel like it). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53bab9d5.8030...@debian.org
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:16:37PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you feel like it). It's my reading that this is the case if you rename your project to not contain PHP (if it does), which would otherwise be violation of the license. / | 4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor | may PHP appear in their name, without prior written permission | from gr...@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in | conjunction with PHP by saying Foo for PHP instead of calling | it PHP Foo or phpfoo \ Thomas -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi, while going through the list of (new) RC bugs claiming to affect wheezy, I noticed a whole bunch of $foo is licensed under the PHP license and is not PHP ones and am wondering if removal from stable is planned as well. Is it? cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi, Steve Langasek: And yes, there are PHP extensions that are not distributable in binary form because of this license. But relicensing *the extension* changes nothing about this, they are *still* not redistributable as part of Debian because they're linking GPL code into PHP which is and will remain GPL-incompatible. Right, but this is about the strange way some people apply the PHP license in general, not GPL violations by specific extensions. Please stay somewhat on topic here. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140701080106.gn27...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi, Clint Byrum: 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. It is quite obvious that PHP/Zend does not give a flying about the way the license is (mis)used by third parties. Also quite obviously, these selfsame third parties think the license to be perfectly applicable, will not change it, and consider us quite strange for even mentioning this. Where do we go from here? We have three options … (A) Remove from Debian. Quite frankly, I'd be for this in a heartbeat if it would make people switch to a saner programming language, but that's wishful thinking (rewrite Mediawiki in Python??). Best outcome: some people create a separate apt archive for the PHP modules we kick out. Worst outcome: a lot of people switch distros because they need the stuff and we lose contributors, not just users. (B) Get Upstream (all of them) to change licenses. My opinion: Fat chance. (C) Bite the bullet and admit that when everybody else calls a color light blue which we consider to be cyan, we might as well docuent that fact instead of trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong, even if they are, from our PoV. After all, the color stays the same, no matter what people call it. By the same token, this license is valid by force of everybody under the sun considering it to be valid (taking intent and all that into account). The chance of an author of / contributor to one of these packages (nobody else has any legal standing to do so) suing us for distributing this code is … well … I suspect that if you want to get a lawyer to laugh, you might as well ask them. So. Bottom line: Can we agree to compromise on some modification of (C) informally, or is a GR required? Disclaimer: IANAL. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 10:17, Matthias Urlichs wrote: (C) Bite the bullet and admit that when everybody else calls a color light blue which we consider to be cyan, we might as well docuent that fact instead of trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong, even if they are, from our PoV. After all, the color stays the same, no matter what people call it. By the same token, this license is valid by force of everybody under the sun considering it to be valid (taking intent and all that into account). The chance of an author of / contributor to one of these packages (nobody else has any legal standing to do so) suing us for distributing this code is … well … I suspect that if you want to get a lawyer to laugh, you might as well ask them. So. Bottom line: Can we agree to compromise on some modification of (C) informally, or is a GR required? JFTR the http://www.php.net/software page claims that software distributed from php.net, pecl.php.net and pear.php.net distributes software under PHP License[1]. This was also claimed in some private emails between me and PHP folks[2]. My conclusion is that the PHP folks do agree that the PHP License cannot be used for software outside *.php.net, but it's perfectly OK for stuff distributed from *.php.net. If there's no wild disagreement from FTP Masters on this in couple of days I will just start closing bugs on packages distributed from *.php.net. 1,2: smarty3 should be okay as well, it's just not yet documented there. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404212304.28574.136477009.4c349...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On 30/06/14 23:47, Marco d'Itri wrote: 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. I agree. The text of a license don't means the same to a lawyer than to a developer. Developers try to understand licenses by applying logic, but logic don't always translates into legal requirements. One example of that is the common usage of the All rights reserved wording on BSD licenses. [1] Another example is the *huge* list of software that we distribute that claims to be provided by the regents of the University of California [2], when that is clearly not true in many cases: $ grep -l 'THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS' /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | wc -l 360 So, unless a lawyer (or the authors of the license) tells us that using the PHP License version 3.01 for distributing software not developed by the PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM is illegal, I suggest that we close all the bugs filed, and that we remove the Uses PHP License, but is not PHP from the REJECT-FAQ. --- [1] http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-June/001011.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de writes: (C) Bite the bullet and admit that when everybody else calls a color light blue which we consider to be cyan, we might as well docuent that fact instead of trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong, even if they are, from our PoV. After all, the color stays the same, no matter what people call it. By the same token, this license is valid by force of everybody under the sun considering it to be valid (taking intent and all that into account). The chance of an author of / contributor to one of these packages (nobody else has any legal standing to do so) suing us for distributing this code is … well … I suspect that if you want to get a lawyer to laugh, you might as well ask them. So. Bottom line: Can we agree to compromise on some modification of (C) informally, or is a GR required? (C) seems right to me as well. I don't see this as a matter of principle unless the principle is we refuse to deal with even major software packages that do dumb and self-contradictory things with licenses but without any intent to actually restrict the freedom of the software covered by them. And I don't actually agree with that principle. For stuff not already in Debian, sure, let's stick to a simple policy because we can usually get people to change upstream and make the world a better place, and we don't lose much if we fail. But that doesn't really apply to PHP. This isn't like the GFDL where we have an actual, substantial disagreement with upstream over whether something is free software. The clear intent and the de facto reality is that this software is free; the license just has crappy wording that no one reads literally. From a legal perspective, I think one could make a pretty strong argument that estoppel applies to any attempt to enforce the license literally at this point. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r42582qf@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. This issue reached Planet today, making this even more visible and embarassing to the project, IMO. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see any emails from any of the FTP masters on the matter and we've only been informed about a long and extensive chat with them that had the end result of the mass bug filling. The exact reasoning behind this is still unknown to me and I think this whole chat happened in private -- if not, pointers are welcome. The only think that we /do/ have is a short paragraph from the REJECT FAQ which a) was documented a long time ago, b) is inaccurate for 3.01 (the includes the Zend Engine part) and c) has been consistently ignored in NEW reviews for almost a decade. Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this discussion in public, please? Thanks, Faidon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b1c244.4080...@debian.org
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Jun 30, Faidon Liambotis parav...@debian.org wrote: Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this discussion in public, please? +1 I am ready to explore every available option to make sure that the next release will not be useless for my customers (hence forcing me to install/migrate hundreds of servers to Ubuntu). (And I even hate PHP.) -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-30 13:43:59 -0700: On Jun 30, Faidon Liambotis parav...@debian.org wrote: Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this discussion in public, please? +1 I am ready to explore every available option to make sure that the next release will not be useless for my customers (hence forcing me to install/migrate hundreds of servers to Ubuntu). (And I even hate PHP.) Ubuntu would follow suit I think. It would be too much of a burden to carry all of that without Debian maintainer assistance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404162654-sup-4...@fewbar.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Jun 30, Clint Byrum spam...@debian.org wrote: Ubuntu would follow suit I think. It would be too much of a burden to carry all of that without Debian maintainer assistance. If manpower is a problem for them then I expect that they would keep at least the handful of critically important extensions, or they would lose too much market share. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700: On Jun 26, 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. 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. It is also GPL incompatible due to restrictions it places on the licensee's activities and the word PHP. If anyone has a better way to safeguard those to whom we distribute software, please do speak up about it. 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. However, our users may not have deep pockets and are trusting Debian to uphold the social contract and only distribute 100% free software. We're in quite a different role than distros with real money and lawyers. Anyway, I hope my original message wasn't lost: Let's solve this without compromising our principles. Not let's act blindly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404162713-sup-2...@fewbar.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-30 14:18:15 -0700: On Jun 30, Clint Byrum spam...@debian.org wrote: Ubuntu would follow suit I think. It would be too much of a burden to carry all of that without Debian maintainer assistance. If manpower is a problem for them then I expect that they would keep at least the handful of critically important extensions, or they would lose too much market share. Or perhaps they'd use what little manpower they do have available to approach upstreams about correcting the false statements their license makes and becoming GPL compatible. If we act quickly and get the critical ones fixed, nobody will care about the others and they'll follow suit if they want back in Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404163365-sup-5...@fewbar.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Monday, June 30, 2014 14:11:33 Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-30 13:43:59 -0700: On Jun 30, Faidon Liambotis parav...@debian.org wrote: Can we get an official word from the ftp-masters and have this discussion in public, please? +1 I am ready to explore every available option to make sure that the next release will not be useless for my customers (hence forcing me to install/migrate hundreds of servers to Ubuntu). (And I even hate PHP.) Ubuntu would follow suit I think. It would be too much of a burden to carry all of that without Debian maintainer assistance. As far as I know, the only case where Ubuntu deviates from Debian regarding license policy is that it allows GFDL invariant. I doubt it would be different here. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/200598062.G8jQiMSUga@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:22PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700: On Jun 26, 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. 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. It is also GPL incompatible due to restrictions it places on the licensee's activities and the word PHP. PHP as a whole is GPL-incompatible and this won't change; and GPL compatibility is a non-issue for interpreted languages. So this last bit isn't really relevant here. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Excerpts from Steve Langasek's message of 2014-06-30 14:39:03 -0700: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:22PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700: On Jun 26, 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. 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. It is also GPL incompatible due to restrictions it places on the licensee's activities and the word PHP. PHP as a whole is GPL-incompatible and this won't change; and GPL compatibility is a non-issue for interpreted languages. So this last bit isn't really relevant here. This is about extensions, so it is entirely likely that extensions want to link to GPL and LGPL libraries where PHP itself does not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404164605-sup-...@fewbar.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
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
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:45:07PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Steve Langasek's message of 2014-06-30 14:39:03 -0700: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:22PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from md's message of 2014-06-26 16:54:11 -0700: On Jun 26, 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. 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. It is also GPL incompatible due to restrictions it places on the licensee's activities and the word PHP. PHP as a whole is GPL-incompatible and this won't change; and GPL compatibility is a non-issue for interpreted languages. So this last bit isn't really relevant here. This is about extensions, so it is entirely likely that extensions want to link to GPL and LGPL libraries where PHP itself does not. It's not LGPL incompatible, it's only GPL incompatible. And yes, there are PHP extensions that are not distributable in binary form because of this license. But relicensing *the extension* changes nothing about this, they are *still* not redistributable as part of Debian because they're linking GPL code into PHP which is and will remain GPL-incompatible. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Ondrej Surý wrote: Hi Charles, On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 14:27, Charles Plessy wrote: If your disagreement with the FTP team is unresolvable, and if you have time, maybe you can try to open a ticket for a resolution by the Technical Comittee ? I don't think that falls under tech-ctte jurisdiction under Chapter 8.1 of Debian Constitution. Ccing Debian Secretary... I guess such overruling would need a GR. If you're going to overrule a delegate you would need a GR. That doesn't mean there aren't other options. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140628102235.ga13...@roeckx.be
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi, Chris Bannister: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to work tomorrow, and for roughly the same reasons. Because there is nothing you can do? Because the probability that the event actually happens is about the same. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140627071435.gj27...@smurf.noris.de
Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi everyone, I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. We have several options to do here: 1. Ask upstream to re-license the software to different free license - BSD or MIT/Expat is the closest one. 2. Show that the software in question does come from PHP Group, f.e. software based on src:php5 sources. Most notable example is src:php-json which is copy of ext/json/ adapted to libjson-c-dev instead of the included JSON-IS-EVIL library. 3. We remove the source packages from Debian. One more note: PHP is *not* compatible with GPL[1]. If you have sources that combine PHP-licensed source with GPL-licenced source the result is not distributable. That includes linking GPL library to PHP licenced source (e.g. libreadline as most notable example of GPL library). While doing the copyright research I have found two such examples and Ansgar was that kind that he filled: #752625 and #752627 Full list of bugs filled under this: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=ondrej%40debian.orgtag=php-license-3.01 If you feel to dispute this please take your *well-formed* and *well-thought* arguments to debian-legal. Ondrej [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PHP-3.01 -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1403780412.23608.134754697.0362d...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On 26 June 2014 12:00, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote: Hi everyone, I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Can ftp-masters or you summarise the logic argumentation behind the above conclusion? We have several options to do here: 1. Ask upstream to re-license the software to different free license - BSD or MIT/Expat is the closest one. 2. Show that the software in question does come from PHP Group, f.e. software based on src:php5 sources. Most notable example is src:php-json which is copy of ext/json/ adapted to libjson-c-dev instead of the included JSON-IS-EVIL library. 3. We remove the source packages from Debian. One more note: PHP is *not* compatible with GPL[1]. If you have sources that combine PHP-licensed source with GPL-licenced source the result is not distributable. That includes linking GPL library to PHP licenced source (e.g. libreadline as most notable example of GPL library). While doing the copyright research I have found two such examples and Ansgar was that kind that he filled: #752625 and #752627 Full list of bugs filled under this: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=ondrej%40debian.orgtag=php-license-3.01 If you feel to dispute this please take your *well-formed* and *well-thought* arguments to debian-legal. Why debian-legal, and not here / with you ftp-masters ? -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/canbhlujg0d4wbtdqikvdcfhfan4ymvyv-cohmktdq7tijd6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:09, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: On 26 June 2014 12:00, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote: Hi everyone, I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Can ftp-masters or you summarise the logic argumentation behind the above conclusion? https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html You have a PHP add-on package (any php script/app/thing, not PHP itself) and it's licensed only under the standard PHP license. That license, up to the 3.x which is actually out, is not really usable for anything else than PHP itself. I've mailed our -legal list about that and got only one response, which basically supported my view on this. Basically this license talks only about PHP, the PHP Group, and includes Zend Engine, so its not applicable to anything else. And even worse, older versions include the nice ad-clause. One good solution here is to suggest a license change to your upstream, as they clearly wanted a free one. LGPL or BSD seems to be what they want. And https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html I tried to raise the same argument again: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/06/msg0.html We have several options to do here: 1. Ask upstream to re-license the software to different free license - BSD or MIT/Expat is the closest one. 2. Show that the software in question does come from PHP Group, f.e. software based on src:php5 sources. Most notable example is src:php-json which is copy of ext/json/ adapted to libjson-c-dev instead of the included JSON-IS-EVIL library. 3. We remove the source packages from Debian. One more note: PHP is *not* compatible with GPL[1]. If you have sources that combine PHP-licensed source with GPL-licenced source the result is not distributable. That includes linking GPL library to PHP licenced source (e.g. libreadline as most notable example of GPL library). While doing the copyright research I have found two such examples and Ansgar was that kind that he filled: #752625 and #752627 Full list of bugs filled under this: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=ondrej%40debian.orgtag=php-license-3.01 If you feel to dispute this please take your *well-formed* and *well-thought* arguments to debian-legal. Why debian-legal, and not here / with you ftp-masters ? The initial conclusion came from debian-legal, and I think it's futile to discuss that with ftp-masters when I already done that. And as you can see in the initial conversation in the bug report I was against the removal, but in the end they have convinced me that licensing anything not-being-PHP under PHP License is just no-goer. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1403782870.32126.134768701.169c5...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Bug#752614: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi Ondřej, On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote: I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Can you provide some evidence why you think this applies to smarty3? Smarty3 is licensed under LGPL-2.1+ so I am hesitant to belief that this bug actually affects Smarty3. Please enlighten me! Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148 GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgpq4fN64EZ1D.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:36, Faidon Liambotis wrote: On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Could you elaborate on the reasoning of that? Neither your email to -devel nor the one to -legal[1] explains why you think so and whatever it is, I think it's far from obvious. I think an outcome that results in a mass (RC) bug filing needs to be better documented than that -- and btw, you're supposed to mail debian-devel *before* you do so, not after; cf. developer's reference 7.1.1. Don't shoot the messenger, I just did the dirty work. I have discussed this with ftp-masters and release team before filling the bugs, arguing heavily in disagreement with ftp-master's REJECT FAQ - the PHP License REJECT is there since 2005. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1403783628.3039.134777537.5ee02...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Bug#752614: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:56, Ondřej Surý wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:52, Mike Gabriel wrote: Hi Ondřej, On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote: I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Can you provide some evidence why you think this applies to smarty3? Smarty3 is licensed under LGPL-2.1+ so I am hesitant to belief that this bug actually affects Smarty3. Files: development/lexer/LexerGenerator/Lexer.php Copyright: 2006, Gregory Beaver License: PHP License 3.01, http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt This source file is subject to version 3.01 of the PHP license that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI: http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt. If you did not receive a copy of the PHP License and are unable to obtain it through the web, please send a note to lice...@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately. Files: development/lexer/Exception.php Copyright: 2006, Gregory Beaver License: PHP License 3.0, http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt This source file is subject to version 3.0 of the PHP license that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI: http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt. If you did not receive a copy of the PHP License and are unable to obtain it through the web, please send a note to lice...@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately. And two more undocumented: ./development/lexer/ParserGenerator/State.php: * @license http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt PHP License 3.01 ./development/lexer/ParserGenerator/Parser.php: * @license http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt PHP License 3.01 Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1403783794.3718.134779033.23005...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Bug#752614: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:52, Mike Gabriel wrote: Hi Ondřej, On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote: I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Can you provide some evidence why you think this applies to smarty3? Smarty3 is licensed under LGPL-2.1+ so I am hesitant to belief that this bug actually affects Smarty3. Files: development/lexer/LexerGenerator/Lexer.php Copyright: 2006, Gregory Beaver License: PHP License 3.01, http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt This source file is subject to version 3.01 of the PHP license that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI: http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt. If you did not receive a copy of the PHP License and are unable to obtain it through the web, please send a note to lice...@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately. Files: development/lexer/Exception.php Copyright: 2006, Gregory Beaver License: PHP License 3.0, http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt This source file is subject to version 3.0 of the PHP license that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI: http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt. If you did not receive a copy of the PHP License and are unable to obtain it through the web, please send a note to lice...@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately. And two more undocumented: -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1403783770.3678.134778889.53139...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Could you elaborate on the reasoning of that? Neither your email to -devel nor the one to -legal[1] explains why you think so and whatever it is, I think it's far from obvious. I think an outcome that results in a mass (RC) bug filing needs to be better documented than that -- and btw, you're supposed to mail debian-devel *before* you do so, not after; cf. developer's reference 7.1.1. Besides the importance of the bug filing itself and removing half of PHP from Debian (including packages such as php-memcached!), I have another point to make: as you're well aware, we're in the progress of packaging Facebook's HHVM, which is a new runtime engine for PHP that is gaining some popularity[2]. HHVM is heavily based on PHP and both the parts that are forked from PHP and the parts that were originally written by Facebook (e.g. the VM engine) are licensed either under the PHP 3.01 or the Zend 2.00 licenses. Facebook's lawyers clearly think it's okay, and I do too, FWIW. They do avoid direct and indirect GPL dependencies of course, but I frankly can't see why the PHP license here would be problematic. Regards, Faidon 1: 1401193085.24090.121958581.5b64c...@webmail.messagingengine.com 2: We intend of switching Wikimedia's infrastructure to HHVM in the upcoming quarter, for instance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ac05b2.8000...@debian.org
Re: Bug#752532: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:00:12PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: 3. We remove the source packages from Debian. Can you kindly explain why? Is the PHP license is non-free? If so, why? If not - let's lower the bugs severity. I see only *one* reply from debian-legal here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/threads.html#00128 And this reply is not strictly suggests to do such (insane) thing. --8-- So, looking at such packages in NEW - what do you guys suggest to do? *I* tend to go and kick them out. I would probably let it pass --8-- Most authors will ignore such artifical license issues, coming from the Debian, especially as this is not a problem for other distributions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140626120707.ga4...@darkstar.order.hcn-strela.ru
Re: Bug#752614: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi Ondřej On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:56:34 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:56, Ondřej Surý wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:52, Mike Gabriel wrote: Hi Ondřej, On Do 26 Jun 2014 13:00:12 CEST, Ondřej Surý wrote: I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Can you provide some evidence why you think this applies to smarty3? Smarty3 is licensed under LGPL-2.1+ so I am hesitant to belief that this bug actually affects Smarty3. Files: development/lexer/LexerGenerator/Lexer.php Copyright: 2006, Gregory Beaver License: PHP License 3.01, http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt This source file is subject to version 3.01 of the PHP license that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI: http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt. If you did not receive a copy of the PHP License and are unable to obtain it through the web, please send a note to lice...@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately. Files: development/lexer/Exception.php Copyright: 2006, Gregory Beaver License: PHP License 3.0, http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt This source file is subject to version 3.0 of the PHP license that is available through the world-wide-web at the following URI: http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt. If you did not receive a copy of the PHP License and are unable to obtain it through the web, please send a note to lice...@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately. And two more undocumented: ./development/lexer/ParserGenerator/State.php: * @license http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt PHP License 3.01 ./development/lexer/ParserGenerator/Parser.php: * @license http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt PHP License 3.01 Cheers, Ah dang... my Git working copy was on the squeeze branch... I get what you are up to... Actually, I guess you have spotted three embedded libraries, as well. Will take a look at that next week. light+love Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148 GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgpCzS8VNJP8V.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Le Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:53:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý a écrit : On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 13:36, Faidon Liambotis wrote: On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Could you elaborate on the reasoning of that? Neither your email to -devel nor the one to -legal[1] explains why you think so and whatever it is, I think it's far from obvious. I think an outcome that results in a mass (RC) bug filing needs to be better documented than that -- and btw, you're supposed to mail debian-devel *before* you do so, not after; cf. developer's reference 7.1.1. Don't shoot the messenger, I just did the dirty work. I have discussed this with ftp-masters and release team before filling the bugs, arguing heavily in disagreement with ftp-master's REJECT FAQ - the PHP License REJECT is there since 2005. Hi Ondrej, sorry for not having answered your email on debian-legal despite agreeing with your point of view. Given my long history of fighting with the FTP team, I was worried that my opinion would count peanuts or even have the opposite effect as intended. This said, while the PHP license is definitely a poor choice for software that is not produced by the PHP group, I do not see how it can make the software unredistributable. If your disagreement with the FTP team is unresolvable, and if you have time, maybe you can try to open a ticket for a resolution by the Technical Comittee ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140626122710.ge21...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi Charles, On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 14:27, Charles Plessy wrote: If your disagreement with the FTP team is unresolvable, and if you have time, maybe you can try to open a ticket for a resolution by the Technical Comittee ? I don't think that falls under tech-ctte jurisdiction under Chapter 8.1 of Debian Constitution. Ccing Debian Secretary... I guess such overruling would need a GR. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1403785947.11658.134791917.1d35c...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:27:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I have discussed this with ftp-masters and release team before filling the bugs, arguing heavily in disagreement with ftp-master's REJECT FAQ - the PHP License REJECT is there since 2005. Hi Ondrej, sorry for not having answered your email on debian-legal despite agreeing with your point of view. Given my long history of fighting with the FTP team, I was worried that my opinion would count peanuts or even have the opposite effect as intended. This said, while the PHP license is definitely a poor choice for software that is not produced by the PHP group, I do not see how it can make the software unredistributable. Agreed. There is nothing in these licenses that makes the software undistributable; it just requires the distributor to attach *false statements* to it as part of distribution. I have no objection to the ftp team's decision to treat this as an automatic reject on this basis - I don't think a license that requires us to make false statements is suitable for main - but it's wrong to claim that these works are undistributable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Jun 26, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: I have no objection to the ftp team's decision to treat this as an automatic reject on this basis - I don't think a license that requires us to make false statements is suitable for main - but it's wrong to claim that these works are undistributable. Reality check #1: it is quite obvious that even if anybody else accepts this interpretation then nobody cares. Reality check #2: Debian would not be viable without major packages like PHP support for imagemagick or memcached, if we do we may as well remove the the whole language. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:36:18PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Could you elaborate on the reasoning of that? Neither your email to -devel nor the one to -legal[1] explains why you think so and whatever it is, I think it's far from obvious. I think an outcome that results in a mass (RC) bug filing needs to be better documented than that -- and btw, you're supposed to mail debian-devel *before* you do so, not after; cf. developer's reference 7.1.1. Besides the importance of the bug filing itself and removing half of PHP from Debian (including packages such as php-memcached!), I have another point to make: as you're well aware, we're in the progress of packaging Facebook's HHVM, which is a new runtime engine for PHP that is gaining some popularity[2]. Furthermore, there are bugs in the actual MBF that's been filed here. Bug #752639 was filed against php-imlib, which gives the PHP license as one of *two* options under which the work can be distributed - LGPL is the other, and is in practice the one that's in effect for Debian. So I think we need a review here of the MBF methodology, because the problems with the PHP License were already identified and worked through in the archive a decade ago - so a lot of these bugs are probably false positives. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Steve, I did hand checked all copyright files in question and while php-imlib might have slipped me, I am quite sure that your claim about lot of these is false, since php-imlib is not the only package under dual licensing I have seen. I do apologize for filling bug against php-imlib though. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server On 26. 6. 2014, at 19:29, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:36:18PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: On 06/26/14 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: I should have done this earlier before cloning the bugs, so here's some more background on the bugs filled. I did have a quite long and extensive chat with FTP Masters and our conclusion was that PHP License (any version) is suitable only for software that comes directly from PHP Group, that basically means only PHP (src:php5) itself. Could you elaborate on the reasoning of that? Neither your email to -devel nor the one to -legal[1] explains why you think so and whatever it is, I think it's far from obvious. I think an outcome that results in a mass (RC) bug filing needs to be better documented than that -- and btw, you're supposed to mail debian-devel *before* you do so, not after; cf. developer's reference 7.1.1. Besides the importance of the bug filing itself and removing half of PHP from Debian (including packages such as php-memcached!), I have another point to make: as you're well aware, we're in the progress of packaging Facebook's HHVM, which is a new runtime engine for PHP that is gaining some popularity[2]. Furthermore, there are bugs in the actual MBF that's been filed here. Bug #752639 was filed against php-imlib, which gives the PHP license as one of *two* options under which the work can be distributed - LGPL is the other, and is in practice the one that's in effect for Debian. So I think we need a review here of the MBF methodology, because the problems with the PHP License were already identified and worked through in the archive a decade ago - so a lot of these bugs are probably false positives. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 07:26:05PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jun 26, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: I have no objection to the ftp team's decision to treat this as an automatic reject on this basis - I don't think a license that requires us to make false statements is suitable for main - but it's wrong to claim that these works are undistributable. Reality check #1: it is quite obvious that even if anybody else accepts this interpretation then nobody cares. Ah good, argumentum ad populum, I was getting sick of Debian having principles anyway. Reality check #2: Debian would not be viable without major packages like PHP support for imagemagick or memcached, if we do we may as well remove the the whole language. Well, you won't hear any objections from *me* to the idea of removing PHP from the archive. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi, Steve Langasek: Ah good, argumentum ad populum, I was getting sick of Debian having principles anyway. The point is that absolutely nobody else seems to be interested in this strange licensing situation. Debian itself had the problem for YEARS and nobody noticed. Thus, reality check #3: This license contains some strange terms that make it look like it doesn't really apply to the software it's distributed with, but QUITE OBVIOUSLY the author of the software in question thought other- wise, and there is no actual legal problem (nobody else is complaining about the license, much less threatening to revoke permissions, much less suing somebody). Thus², while we're in a reasonably good position to convince Upstream to fix that problem, filing RC bugs and thus making PHP unuseable in Debian is certainly going to be regarded as typical Debian principles-above-all overkill but unlikely to be helpful to anybody. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140626181703.gh27...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Excerpts from Matthias Urlichs's message of 2014-06-26 11:17:04 -0700: Hi, Steve Langasek: Ah good, argumentum ad populum, I was getting sick of Debian having principles anyway. The point is that absolutely nobody else seems to be interested in this strange licensing situation. Debian itself had the problem for YEARS and nobody noticed. Thus, reality check #3: This license contains some strange terms that make it look like it doesn't really apply to the software it's distributed with, but QUITE OBVIOUSLY the author of the software in question thought other- wise, and there is no actual legal problem (nobody else is complaining about the license, much less threatening to revoke permissions, much less suing somebody). Thus², while we're in a reasonably good position to convince Upstream to fix that problem, filing RC bugs and thus making PHP unuseable in Debian is certainly going to be regarded as typical Debian principles-above-all overkill but unlikely to be helpful to anybody. Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I was getting bored with all of those purely technical discussions about systemd (PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS JOKE). If anyone has a better way to safeguard those to whom we distribute software, please do speak up about it. I for one think our users choose Debian because they can be sure their rights are being looked after. Let's do what we can to help upstream rectify the situation, but lets also be honest with our users while they respond. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1403806963-sup-3...@fewbar.com
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
Hi, Clint Byrum: Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I am not arguing against our principles. I am arguing against a panicked let's RC-bug half of our PHP infrastructure (and drop it from $NEXTSTABLE because the situation won't be resolved until the release) response which is unlikely to be helpful to anybody. It would not be the first time we 'postpone' a licensing meltdown (GDFL, anybody?). If anyone has a better way to safeguard those to whom we distribute software, please do speak up about it. I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to work tomorrow, and for roughly the same reasons. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140626185743.gi27...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Jun 26, Clint Byrum spam...@debian.org wrote: Oh good, another discussion where we argue against our principles. I And which principles would be that, exactly? If anyone has a better way to safeguard those to whom we distribute software, please do speak up about it. 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. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to work tomorrow, and for roughly the same reasons. Because there is nothing you can do? -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140627024316.GE29004@tal
Re: Sources licensed under PHP License and not being PHP are not distributable
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:43:16PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I'd recommend that we safeguard our users against 'PHP' licensing problems the same way I protect myself against a meteorite hitting me on my way to work tomorrow, and for roughly the same reasons. Because there is nothing you can do? A sufficiently padded tin-foil hat may help. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
