Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> writes:
> I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from
> *.php.net carrying the PHP license. The license talks about "PHP
> Software" which we define as software you get from/via *.php.net.
Specifically, the license text <URL:http://php.net/license/3_01.txt> has
this clause:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
"This product includes PHP software, freely available from
<http://www.php.net/software/>".
Nowhere is “PHP software” defined in the license. Will you update the
license to make your above definition explicit in the license terms?
> We support external repos such as github, but they are still linked
> back to php.net via their pecl.php.net entries, for example. For
> things that aren't distributed via pecl.php.net, pear.php.net or
> www.php.net itself, I can see the argument, but those are not projects
> we can do anything about.
The problem is exacerbated, though, by the specific license terms.
The license terms do not apply sensibly outside your stated definition;
yet many software works begin outside that definition, and only later
make their way to the locations you mention. This distinction is *not*
the case for more widely-accepted license terms, so the distinction is
easy to miss.
This does not need to be the case; it is made the case by the specific
terms of this license. That is a problem which can be addressed by
changing the terms of the license to be generally applicable.
--
\ “Those who write software only for pay should go hurt some |
`\ other field.” —Erik Naggum, in _gnu.misc.discuss_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney