On 31/07/14 10:54, Walter Landry wrote:
Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style?
No, this is completely infeasible
That is not correct. It is very easy to change the license because
the license has an upgrade
Ángel González dixit:
On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP
- but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a product derived
from PHP but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
The actual PHP
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Ángel González dixit:
On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP
- but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a product derived
from PHP but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make
Ángel González dixit:
Please remember that we are just talking about changes that Debian
itself may want to perform (so it doesn't require a renaming which
would be bad both for PHP and Debian users).
Right, but Debian probably (though it’s up to Ondřej Surý, the
maintainer; there is no
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly
valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least,
Hi!
This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes
*all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistribution of
derived works is only permitted from *.php.net which is clearly inaccep-
table. This makes not just forking the software impossible but also
On 30 July 2014 22:00:17 CEST, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of
PHP. I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute
under the name of PHP is anything but the
On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not,
in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the
interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but
You could not distribute other
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to keep the spirit of the PHP License and at the same time
solve that strict interpretation, I propose the following change to
the PHP License 3.01, which will hopefully please both parties:
Stop. Please just stop. Please pick an existing, well
Hi!
I think everyone does claim that. You do know Debian doesn't just
Everyone being whom specifically?
distribute the binaries from Php.net, right? No contortion: the php5
in Debian is a derived work. Here's a list of patches
Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style?
No, this is completely infeasible
That is not correct. It is very easy to change the license because
the license has an upgrade clause (condition #5).
Cheers,
Walter Landry
11 matches
Mail list logo
