Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: jsjoh...@php.net Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: When the decision is made, can we get a public statement on the site about it? Posts like the one on iteration99 (dot) com are only raising the confusion level among devs when really this isn't something directly impacting most PHP developers. Previous Comments: [2013-08-29 01:04:59] v3qqd2w4 dot ov0 at 20minutemail dot com I hate to add to the noise, but has anyone pointed out to JSON that leaving it to a court to interpret shall be used for Good, not Evil is a highly unpredictable outcome? The entire license could be invalidated -- since it has no severability clause -- meaning nobody except the copyright owner is allowed to use any of the JSON code for anything. Is that really a potential outcome that they want? [2013-08-28 10:26:30] d...@php.net I'd be more than happy to see a json extension drop-in. Obviously we cannot change the license without the authors permissions, so a drop-in would be the best approach. [2013-08-28 09:20:59] paj...@php.net Besides the license issue, which is a problem but not a php one, Remi's new extension brings its lot of nice new stuff. Please leave this open and add a link to the new extension and RFC, to avoid endless confusion here. [2013-08-28 08:02:41] r...@php.net This issue need to be discussed by all PHP developers. I plan to submit a RFC in a few days. This bug will be closed according to the vote result. [2013-08-28 07:51:20] r...@php.net Keep this open. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: ond...@php.net Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: Stas: Of course it's a PHP bug. PHP don't live in a vacuum, but has thriving ecosystem of various users/packagers/distributors/distributions/etc. and they are all affected by the choice you (as PHP) make. It's not healthy to dug the head into the sand and pretend that it's not a _PHP_ bug, since it affects the users of PHP. Previous Comments: [2013-08-22 22:01:39] kap...@php.net Stas: We (PHP) provide the code, and the eco system clearly has a problem with it. We could either keep ignoring it while they provide a replacement code, or adopt it officially to make everyone happy. [2013-08-22 21:52:19] shitty at gmail dot com Not evil???... come on!!! [2013-08-21 18:47:57] s...@php.net How this is a PHP bug? [2013-07-17 15:18:33] r...@php.net @seld Mandriva/Fedora/Debian have drop json non-free extension but provides jsonc dropin alternative (php5-json 1.3.1 for debian). So, your comment is not PHP related. See debian packager to have this package installed when needed (pulled by main php package for Fedora). [2013-07-17 14:24:32] s...@php.net What's the status here Remi? Can we have a regular Debian release including the JSON ext before this hits testing/stable? We had a first issue on Composer today because someone was missing the json ext [1], using Ubuntu 13.10. If this isn't resolved soon Ubuntu's next release won't have json enabled by default and we'll have a support shitstorm on our hands, so please don't do Evil because of a dubious license statement. Given the prevalence of JSON APIs and such these days, it's not just Composer that will be affected, so removing it before having a replacement in place was really an unhelpful decision IMO. [1] https://github.com/composer/composer/issues/2092 The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: v3qqd2w4 dot ov0 at 20minutemail dot com Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: I hate to add to the noise, but has anyone pointed out to JSON that leaving it to a court to interpret shall be used for Good, not Evil is a highly unpredictable outcome? The entire license could be invalidated -- since it has no severability clause -- meaning nobody except the copyright owner is allowed to use any of the JSON code for anything. Is that really a potential outcome that they want? Previous Comments: [2013-08-28 10:26:30] d...@php.net I'd be more than happy to see a json extension drop-in. Obviously we cannot change the license without the authors permissions, so a drop-in would be the best approach. [2013-08-28 09:20:59] paj...@php.net Besides the license issue, which is a problem but not a php one, Remi's new extension brings its lot of nice new stuff. Please leave this open and add a link to the new extension and RFC, to avoid endless confusion here. [2013-08-28 08:02:41] r...@php.net This issue need to be discussed by all PHP developers. I plan to submit a RFC in a few days. This bug will be closed according to the vote result. [2013-08-28 07:51:20] r...@php.net Keep this open. [2013-08-28 07:39:35] ses...@php.net Why do you guys even argue about this? This is not a problem of PHP. It is a problem of Debian. If they don't like the license then they can just replace the code. Or they can go forward and drop the whole PHP package from their distribution. (Which is the usual threat from Debian mainteiners.) Not a bug in PHP. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: shitty at gmail dot com Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: Not evil???... come on!!! Previous Comments: [2013-08-21 18:47:57] s...@php.net How this is a PHP bug? [2013-07-17 15:18:33] r...@php.net @seld Mandriva/Fedora/Debian have drop json non-free extension but provides jsonc dropin alternative (php5-json 1.3.1 for debian). So, your comment is not PHP related. See debian packager to have this package installed when needed (pulled by main php package for Fedora). [2013-07-17 14:24:32] s...@php.net What's the status here Remi? Can we have a regular Debian release including the JSON ext before this hits testing/stable? We had a first issue on Composer today because someone was missing the json ext [1], using Ubuntu 13.10. If this isn't resolved soon Ubuntu's next release won't have json enabled by default and we'll have a support shitstorm on our hands, so please don't do Evil because of a dubious license statement. Given the prevalence of JSON APIs and such these days, it's not just Composer that will be affected, so removing it before having a replacement in place was really an unhelpful decision IMO. [1] https://github.com/composer/composer/issues/2092 [2013-04-27 10:40:22] r...@php.net Yes, I'm still working on the new alternative extension. [2013-04-22 22:24:39] pleasestand at live dot com Remi: any update? Is https://github.com/remicollet/pecl-json-c relevant? I'll note that as a [MediaWiki][1] developer, I recently removed our bundled copy of PEAR Services_JSON on the basis that the JSON extension is compiled in by default, and therefore users can be expected to have it installed. Unfortunately, I had to [revert the change][2] because I only found out about the licensing problem last week, and our next release is three weeks from now (2013-05-15). So I would like to know whether you are still working on this. [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/ [2]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47431 The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: kap...@php.net Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: Stas: We (PHP) provide the code, and the eco system clearly has a problem with it. We could either keep ignoring it while they provide a replacement code, or adopt it officially to make everyone happy. Previous Comments: [2013-08-22 21:52:19] shitty at gmail dot com Not evil???... come on!!! [2013-08-21 18:47:57] s...@php.net How this is a PHP bug? [2013-07-17 15:18:33] r...@php.net @seld Mandriva/Fedora/Debian have drop json non-free extension but provides jsonc dropin alternative (php5-json 1.3.1 for debian). So, your comment is not PHP related. See debian packager to have this package installed when needed (pulled by main php package for Fedora). [2013-07-17 14:24:32] s...@php.net What's the status here Remi? Can we have a regular Debian release including the JSON ext before this hits testing/stable? We had a first issue on Composer today because someone was missing the json ext [1], using Ubuntu 13.10. If this isn't resolved soon Ubuntu's next release won't have json enabled by default and we'll have a support shitstorm on our hands, so please don't do Evil because of a dubious license statement. Given the prevalence of JSON APIs and such these days, it's not just Composer that will be affected, so removing it before having a replacement in place was really an unhelpful decision IMO. [1] https://github.com/composer/composer/issues/2092 [2013-04-27 10:40:22] r...@php.net Yes, I'm still working on the new alternative extension. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: s...@php.net Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: What's the status here Remi? Can we have a regular Debian release including the JSON ext before this hits testing/stable? We had a first issue on Composer today because someone was missing the json ext [1], using Ubuntu 13.10. If this isn't resolved soon Ubuntu's next release won't have json enabled by default and we'll have a support shitstorm on our hands, so please don't do Evil because of a dubious license statement. Given the prevalence of JSON APIs and such these days, it's not just Composer that will be affected, so removing it before having a replacement in place was really an unhelpful decision IMO. [1] https://github.com/composer/composer/issues/2092 Previous Comments: [2013-04-27 10:40:22] r...@php.net Yes, I'm still working on the new alternative extension. [2013-04-22 22:24:39] pleasestand at live dot com Remi: any update? Is https://github.com/remicollet/pecl-json-c relevant? I'll note that as a [MediaWiki][1] developer, I recently removed our bundled copy of PEAR Services_JSON on the basis that the JSON extension is compiled in by default, and therefore users can be expected to have it installed. Unfortunately, I had to [revert the change][2] because I only found out about the licensing problem last week, and our next release is three weeks from now (2013-05-15). So I would like to know whether you are still working on this. [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/ [2]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47431 [2013-04-04 18:00:52] b dot eltzner at gmx dot de I am not a native speaker. This comment is not supposed to be rude or insult anybody. I would like to make the problem clearer: *The json license affecting /ext/json/JSON_parser.c and /ext/json/utf8_decode.c is regarded non-free by GNU/FSF, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat and Google and is not approved by OSI. This is not at all the same as Free but incompatible with GPL, which is the category in which the FSF lists the php license. *The morality clause The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. violates software freedom 0 and point 6 of the open source definition and the license will therefore _never_ be free or open source by definition. This is not a license some fanatics don't like, it is a manifestly proprietary license. *The original author of the license has purposely chosen this form of license to trick open source projects into mistaking it as an open source license. He did this to prove the point that those open source guys are entitled kids and plays the issue for amusement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA *With the non-free files, PHP cannot be distributed unmodified as free software by downstream projects. Note that I don't say Throw that stuff out11 It goes without saying that you can distribute the result of your work under whatever licenses you like, open source or not. However, if you want PHP to be easily distributable as free and open source software by downstream projects, I am sure they would be enormously relieved, if you provided them with a simple way to exclude the non-free files without breaking too much functionality. [2012-11-23 13:33:42] r...@php.net A patch proposed in https://bugs.php.net/63588 makes json_encode really free. [2012-11-15 18:09:30] ras...@php.net I am not saying it isn't a tricky license clause to deal with and it would be better if it wasn't there. However, I am also not keen on spending resources on rewriting code for this reason. If someone supplies a functionally equivalent replacement, we will have a look at it. But as far as I am concerned, license- wise the terms Good and Evil are not legal terms. These are more subjective self-describing terms and since I deem PHP's use of the code as Good then we comply with the license. Could others perhaps use PHP and thus the code for Evil and therefore not comply with the license? Sure, but there are many things people can do with our code that is either against the various licenses involved or even illegal criminally. It is something we cannot control. The remainder of the
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: r...@php.net Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: Yes, I'm still working on the new alternative extension. Previous Comments: [2013-04-22 22:24:39] pleasestand at live dot com Remi: any update? Is https://github.com/remicollet/pecl-json-c relevant? I'll note that as a [MediaWiki][1] developer, I recently removed our bundled copy of PEAR Services_JSON on the basis that the JSON extension is compiled in by default, and therefore users can be expected to have it installed. Unfortunately, I had to [revert the change][2] because I only found out about the licensing problem last week, and our next release is three weeks from now (2013-05-15). So I would like to know whether you are still working on this. [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/ [2]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47431 [2013-04-04 18:00:52] b dot eltzner at gmx dot de I am not a native speaker. This comment is not supposed to be rude or insult anybody. I would like to make the problem clearer: *The json license affecting /ext/json/JSON_parser.c and /ext/json/utf8_decode.c is regarded non-free by GNU/FSF, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat and Google and is not approved by OSI. This is not at all the same as Free but incompatible with GPL, which is the category in which the FSF lists the php license. *The morality clause The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. violates software freedom 0 and point 6 of the open source definition and the license will therefore _never_ be free or open source by definition. This is not a license some fanatics don't like, it is a manifestly proprietary license. *The original author of the license has purposely chosen this form of license to trick open source projects into mistaking it as an open source license. He did this to prove the point that those open source guys are entitled kids and plays the issue for amusement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA *With the non-free files, PHP cannot be distributed unmodified as free software by downstream projects. Note that I don't say Throw that stuff out11 It goes without saying that you can distribute the result of your work under whatever licenses you like, open source or not. However, if you want PHP to be easily distributable as free and open source software by downstream projects, I am sure they would be enormously relieved, if you provided them with a simple way to exclude the non-free files without breaking too much functionality. [2012-11-23 13:33:42] r...@php.net A patch proposed in https://bugs.php.net/63588 makes json_encode really free. [2012-11-15 18:09:30] ras...@php.net I am not saying it isn't a tricky license clause to deal with and it would be better if it wasn't there. However, I am also not keen on spending resources on rewriting code for this reason. If someone supplies a functionally equivalent replacement, we will have a look at it. But as far as I am concerned, license- wise the terms Good and Evil are not legal terms. These are more subjective self-describing terms and since I deem PHP's use of the code as Good then we comply with the license. Could others perhaps use PHP and thus the code for Evil and therefore not comply with the license? Sure, but there are many things people can do with our code that is either against the various licenses involved or even illegal criminally. It is something we cannot control. [2012-11-15 18:01:24] paj...@php.net More seriously, as soon as the license is changed upstream, we will merge it. But we won't be able to do anything before. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: pleasestand at live dot com Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: Remi: any update? Is https://github.com/remicollet/pecl-json-c relevant? I'll note that as a [MediaWiki][1] developer, I recently removed our bundled copy of PEAR Services_JSON on the basis that the JSON extension is compiled in by default, and therefore users can be expected to have it installed. Unfortunately, I had to [revert the change][2] because I only found out about the licensing problem last week, and our next release is three weeks from now (2013-05-15). So I would like to know whether you are still working on this. [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/ [2]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47431 Previous Comments: [2013-04-04 18:00:52] b dot eltzner at gmx dot de I am not a native speaker. This comment is not supposed to be rude or insult anybody. I would like to make the problem clearer: *The json license affecting /ext/json/JSON_parser.c and /ext/json/utf8_decode.c is regarded non-free by GNU/FSF, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat and Google and is not approved by OSI. This is not at all the same as Free but incompatible with GPL, which is the category in which the FSF lists the php license. *The morality clause The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. violates software freedom 0 and point 6 of the open source definition and the license will therefore _never_ be free or open source by definition. This is not a license some fanatics don't like, it is a manifestly proprietary license. *The original author of the license has purposely chosen this form of license to trick open source projects into mistaking it as an open source license. He did this to prove the point that those open source guys are entitled kids and plays the issue for amusement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA *With the non-free files, PHP cannot be distributed unmodified as free software by downstream projects. Note that I don't say Throw that stuff out11 It goes without saying that you can distribute the result of your work under whatever licenses you like, open source or not. However, if you want PHP to be easily distributable as free and open source software by downstream projects, I am sure they would be enormously relieved, if you provided them with a simple way to exclude the non-free files without breaking too much functionality. [2012-11-23 13:33:42] r...@php.net A patch proposed in https://bugs.php.net/63588 makes json_encode really free. [2012-11-15 18:09:30] ras...@php.net I am not saying it isn't a tricky license clause to deal with and it would be better if it wasn't there. However, I am also not keen on spending resources on rewriting code for this reason. If someone supplies a functionally equivalent replacement, we will have a look at it. But as far as I am concerned, license- wise the terms Good and Evil are not legal terms. These are more subjective self-describing terms and since I deem PHP's use of the code as Good then we comply with the license. Could others perhaps use PHP and thus the code for Evil and therefore not comply with the license? Sure, but there are many things people can do with our code that is either against the various licenses involved or even illegal criminally. It is something we cannot control. [2012-11-15 18:01:24] paj...@php.net More seriously, as soon as the license is changed upstream, we will merge it. But we won't be able to do anything before. [2012-11-15 18:00:52] paj...@php.net well, the FSF does not like the PHP license either. Nothing worries me here :) The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: b dot eltzner at gmx dot de Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Assigned Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Assigned To:remi Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: I am not a native speaker. This comment is not supposed to be rude or insult anybody. I would like to make the problem clearer: *The json license affecting /ext/json/JSON_parser.c and /ext/json/utf8_decode.c is regarded non-free by GNU/FSF, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat and Google and is not approved by OSI. This is not at all the same as Free but incompatible with GPL, which is the category in which the FSF lists the php license. *The morality clause The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. violates software freedom 0 and point 6 of the open source definition and the license will therefore _never_ be free or open source by definition. This is not a license some fanatics don't like, it is a manifestly proprietary license. *The original author of the license has purposely chosen this form of license to trick open source projects into mistaking it as an open source license. He did this to prove the point that those open source guys are entitled kids and plays the issue for amusement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA *With the non-free files, PHP cannot be distributed unmodified as free software by downstream projects. Note that I don't say Throw that stuff out11 It goes without saying that you can distribute the result of your work under whatever licenses you like, open source or not. However, if you want PHP to be easily distributable as free and open source software by downstream projects, I am sure they would be enormously relieved, if you provided them with a simple way to exclude the non-free files without breaking too much functionality. Previous Comments: [2012-11-23 13:33:42] r...@php.net A patch proposed in https://bugs.php.net/63588 makes json_encode really free. [2012-11-15 18:09:30] ras...@php.net I am not saying it isn't a tricky license clause to deal with and it would be better if it wasn't there. However, I am also not keen on spending resources on rewriting code for this reason. If someone supplies a functionally equivalent replacement, we will have a look at it. But as far as I am concerned, license- wise the terms Good and Evil are not legal terms. These are more subjective self-describing terms and since I deem PHP's use of the code as Good then we comply with the license. Could others perhaps use PHP and thus the code for Evil and therefore not comply with the license? Sure, but there are many things people can do with our code that is either against the various licenses involved or even illegal criminally. It is something we cannot control. [2012-11-15 18:01:24] paj...@php.net More seriously, as soon as the license is changed upstream, we will merge it. But we won't be able to do anything before. [2012-11-15 18:00:52] paj...@php.net well, the FSF does not like the PHP license either. Nothing worries me here :) [2012-11-15 17:58:38] ansgar at debian dot org I just want to note that the FSF[1] and other distributions like Fedora also think this license is bad[2]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Bad_Licenses, look for JSON License So this is not a problem for just Debian. Ansgar The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: r...@php.net Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Suspended Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: A patch proposed in https://bugs.php.net/63588 makes json_encode really free. Previous Comments: [2012-11-15 18:09:30] ras...@php.net I am not saying it isn't a tricky license clause to deal with and it would be better if it wasn't there. However, I am also not keen on spending resources on rewriting code for this reason. If someone supplies a functionally equivalent replacement, we will have a look at it. But as far as I am concerned, license- wise the terms Good and Evil are not legal terms. These are more subjective self-describing terms and since I deem PHP's use of the code as Good then we comply with the license. Could others perhaps use PHP and thus the code for Evil and therefore not comply with the license? Sure, but there are many things people can do with our code that is either against the various licenses involved or even illegal criminally. It is something we cannot control. [2012-11-15 18:01:24] paj...@php.net More seriously, as soon as the license is changed upstream, we will merge it. But we won't be able to do anything before. [2012-11-15 18:00:52] paj...@php.net well, the FSF does not like the PHP license either. Nothing worries me here :) [2012-11-15 17:58:38] ansgar at debian dot org I just want to note that the FSF[1] and other distributions like Fedora also think this license is bad[2]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Bad_Licenses, look for JSON License So this is not a problem for just Debian. Ansgar [2012-11-15 07:39:35] ras...@php.net Sorry, I don't see us ripping out and rewriting the json code due to this. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
Bug #63520 [Com]: JSON extension includes a problematic license statement
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1 ID: 63520 Comment by: ansgar at debian dot org Reported by:kaplan at debian dot org Summary:JSON extension includes a problematic license statement Status: Suspended Type: Bug Package:JSON related PHP Version:Irrelevant Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: I just want to note that the FSF[1] and other distributions like Fedora also think this license is bad[2]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Bad_Licenses, look for JSON License So this is not a problem for just Debian. Ansgar Previous Comments: [2012-11-15 07:39:35] ras...@php.net Sorry, I don't see us ripping out and rewriting the json code due to this. [2012-11-15 07:30:01] kaplan at debian dot org On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com wrote: The license looks fine to me. So he refuses politely... which means it's time for PHP.net to think about this license issue (e.g. use a different implementation for JSON). And you're right, it's *also* problem in Debian, and we talk to the different upstream projects, trying to resolve the issue with each of them, but that's still a problem of the upstream itself. [2012-11-14 19:51:02] kaplan at debian dot org I wasn't aware for having non php.net developers involved in the code, otherwise I wouldn't asked just to remove that paragraph but to resolve the issue with upstream, which is what I'm trying to do. Your licensing policy is what we all do, no need to defend it (: Anyway, thanks for the fast responses. [2012-11-14 19:49:50] ras...@php.net Well, I think you will find that code from json.org is in a lot of packages Debian ships. This isn't a PHP-Debian issue, this is a Debian-json.org issue for you guys to work out. [2012-11-14 19:47:35] kaplan at debian dot org Mail sent, thanks. Hope he will help to solve this. Otherwise we should think of a plan b. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63520edit=1
