| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: russell_-at-_flora.ottawa.on.ca (Russell McOrmond)
Date: 20 Aug 2000 16:23:25 -0400
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008172028290.890-100000@thinkpad.php.net>
(Copying to a local discussion area so others can read this - please
consider Cc'ing your replies as well)
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Right, but it is not correct to say that PHP 4 is under the QPL. PHP 4 is
> under a BSD-style license.
Why not just use the new-BSD license itself rather than a custom one if
the BSD is what you wanted?
From: http://www.php.net/license/2_02.txt
Clauses 1-3 read just like the BSD license:
http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html
See section "2.2.1. General" - the 2.2.2 is the old BSD license.
Clause 4 sounds like one of the clauses in the GPL referring to versions
of the licenses.
( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html , Clause 9 )
Clause 5 seems to give PHP4 the old BSD-license problems.
--cut--
5. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
"This product includes PHP, freely available from
http://www.php.net/".
--cut--
It isn't clear where this acknowledgement must be? Just in the source
code? Maybe just keeping the output of phpinfo() constant is sufficient?
Here is a discussion of those problems that existed in the old BSD
license, to help clarify the problem.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
If you meant documentation and/or advertising, once various Linux
distributions notice this clause they may be forced to drop the inclusion
of PHP on their CD's - Is this what was intended? I suspect not, so I
believe this clause should either be removed or clarified.
Clause 6 makes the product as a whole potentially take on a different
license. Can Zend and PHP4 not be cleanly separated into a different
product (where which part is PHP4 is clear - maybe different source
archives?). With QT and KDE the separation is clear, and one knows much
better what one can or cannot do with code from each.
--cut--
6. The software incorporates the Zend Engine, a product of Zend
Technologies, Ltd. ("Zend"). The Zend Engine is licensed to the
PHP Association (pursuant to a grant from Zend that can be
found at http://www.php.net/license/ZendGrant/) for
distribution to you under this license agreement, only as a
part of PHP. In the event that you separate the Zend Engine
(or any portion thereof) from the rest of the software, or
modify the Zend Engine, or any portion thereof, your use of the
separated or modified Zend Engine software shall not be governed
by this license, and instead shall be governed by the license
set forth at http://www.zend.com/license/ZendLicense/.
--cut--
This confusion about whether one is using PHP4 or Zend, and what one can
and cannot do does not at all give one a level of comfort. I run a
commercial Free Software support company - can I or can I not use
derivative versions of PHP4? How much of what is called PHP4 could be
'stripped down' before I end up with a problem with the Zend license? It
does suggest I cannot modify any of the Zend sources and cannot use Zend
if somehow it is seen as 'separate' from PHP. How do I clearly/legally
know when it is or is not 'separate'?
How separateable is Zend from PHP? Would it be possible for someone who
wanted a fully Free Software based PHP to replace just that component, and
then not have to worry about it? (EG: What was happening with the Harmony
project http://www.gnu.org/software/harmony/harmony.html trying to replace
QT ).
Back to the FAQ:
http://www.php.net/version4/license-FAQ.php
The comments on the license FAQ still stands. That FAQ alone is
controversial enough that I would not want new customers of mine visiting
the PHP site. The incorrect equating of 'proprietary' and 'commercial' is
something I have had to fight against in my Free Software based COMMERCIAL
business since I founded it, and I am sad to see the PHP website being
used to present such opposition to this style of business (A business
model that has so far been a strong supporter/promoter/etc of PHP)
I don't want to be stuck jumping ship to mod_perl or similar in the
future - is there any way this situation can be cleared up?
It is interesting to be reading this PHP4 FAQ at about the same time as
another product, MySQL, headed the other direction (IE: Towards rather
than away-from clear Free Software).
My forwarding of that announcement, and comments on the PHP4 License FAQ
were posted here: http://www.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1673
(As is this message via the Carbon-Copy).
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://russell.flora.org/work/>
Green Party of Canada: Convention 2000 <http://Ottawa2000.flora.org/>
Ralph Nader for U.S. President! <http://www.votenader.org/>
Problems @ FLORA <http://www.flora.org/flora.status/>
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|