MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-05-07 |
| FROM | From: "David Sugar"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] php license
|
From owner-hangout-desteny-at-mrbrklyn.com Tue May 7 17:07:43 2002
Received: from mail.rm-cpa.com (mail.rm-cpa.com [216.112.229.114])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id g47L7gN07440
for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:07:42 -0400
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (dsl254-112-136.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.254.112.136])
by mail.rm-cpa.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25524;
Tue, 7 May 2002 16:52:12 -0400
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g47L3o907372
for hangout-desteny; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:03:50 -0400
Received: from home.sys (dsl-65-188-113-57.telocity.com [65.188.113.57])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id g47L3nN07366;
Tue, 7 May 2002 17:03:49 -0400
Received: from bayonne.myip.org (home.sys [172.16.1.254])
by home.sys (Postfix) with ESMTP
id ADB941FF2B; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Originating-IP: [208.8.92.101]
From: "David Sugar"
To: "Ruben I Safir" , "Jonathan Bober" ,
hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Subject: Re: [hangout] php license
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 21:29:06 +0000
Message-ID: <20020507.bPf.62526100-at-bayonne.myip.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailer: phpGroupWare (http://www.phpgroupware.org) v 0.9.13.018
Sender: owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "David Sugar"
List: New Yorkers Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribename-at-domian.com to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 15619
Status: RO
Content-Length: 8338
Lines: 210
If I remember correctly, the FSF considered the php2 license to be a free software
license of sorts, and php3 was under the gpl. This particular item was in relation
to the license that php2 had. I am not sure what the FSF opinion is on the
php4/zend licensing other than they do not consider it free software and do not use
it or support it's use in GNU projects.
Ruben I Safir (ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com) wrote*:
>
>
>
>On 2002.05.07 15:19 Jonathan Bober wrote:
>>
>> Ok, there are so many posts on this thread that I am just replying to my
>> own...
>>
>> First, let me quote again from the FSF website, more briefly, and with
>> some added emphasis of my own.
>>
>> ---
>> The Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0.
>> This is a non-copyleft FREE SOFTWARE license.
>> [...]
>> The PHP License, Version 2.02
>> [...]
>> This is a non-copyleft FREE SOFTWARE license.
>> [...]
>> ---
>>
>
>OK - I would disagree the FSF unless the terms of the license are not what they
>are. The PHP license prevents the alteration of core ZEND and redistribution of
>a New Zend. And that is the key. BSD and GPL do this.
>
>
>> I am not too familiar with these licenses. However, the Free Software
>> Foundation is arguably the definitive organization for defining exactly
>> what is and what is not a Free Software license. If either license is
>> not a Free Software license as the FSF defines a Free Software license
>> to be, then someone should correct their mistake.
>
>Agreed
>
>>
>> Now, this does not address the practical issues involved in the PHP
>> license and the QPL. In practice, it may be that these licenses are not
>> as friendly as the GPL or the BSD license, but that does not make them
>> non-free. Let me quote again - "This is a non-copyleft FREE SOFTWARE
>> license."
>>
>
>See above...
>
>> As far as GPL compatible vs. incompatible goes, incompatibility in
>> itself is not a problem with a Free Software license, except to enforce
>> uniform Free Software standards. Other GPL-incompatible licenses
>> include the Apache license, the Mozilla Public License, and the Python
>> License. This does not make these progrmas non-free software.
>> Incompatibility basically means that one cannot take GPL covered code
>> and combine it with code covered under GPL-incompatible license X. A
>> license is not merely incompatible because of its own restrictions - it
>> is also incompatible because of GPL restrictions.
>>
>> We might say that the current BSD license is GPL compatible, because we
>> can take code under said license and repackage it under a GPL-covered
>> product. On the other hand, BSD-supporting people might say that the
>> GPL is a viral license,
>
>
>And in this they are just wrong. It's FUD and fustration. I don't even know
>what this means. It's not even english. The GPL affects nothing other than
>GPL'ed software. This is a fact, not fiction.
>
>
>> incompatible with the BSD license, because one
>> cannot take GPL'd code, package it with BSD-covered code, and release a
>> program under the BSD license. In this sense, the BSD license is "more
>> free"
>
>That is also not right accept for the simplist (and unacceptable) definition
>that freedom eq choice.
>
>Freedom is a societal issue and freedom ne choice.
>
>Any thinking person knows this. There are degrees of freedom the BSD
>license guarantees and degrees of freedom that the GPL guarantees. Form
>the POV of freedom, the GPL does more because it restricts Paul from shooting
>Mary giving Paul and Mary freedom.
>
>
>> Freedom is about allowing the original developer choose how he wants his
>> code to be used,
>
>That is not correct. See above. One persons choice can abuse anothers freedom.
>
>
>>
>> And as another note, this has nothing to do with whether or not PHP is a
>> good or bad language. Ruben does not like it, but many other people do,
>> and that is all I really know about PHP. The Free Software Foundation
>> certainly has no problems with Free PHP code, just as they have no
>> problem with Free Java code. My first post just stemmed from the fact
>> that at last night's meeting, Ruben said something about PHP being
>> non-free, and that didn't seem right to me, so I decided to check it
>> out.
>
>If Zend is closed, like Brendan described, then FSF be damned, it's not Free Software
>according the the FSF's own standards.
>
>Which just goes to I'm not the Stallman minion Brendan accused me of. Nor am I not
>hios minion.
>
>Why not you do the research on the PHP license and structure and ask Richard why
>the site says what it does.
>
>Either I misunderstand the licensing, Richard misunderstands, or we both do.
>
>rms-at-gnu.org
>
>May 2002 23:09:50 -0500
>> Jonathan Bober wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I thought that there was something wrong about the statement that PHP
>> > is not Free Software. PHP is Free Software, just under a "bad" Free
>> > Software License.
>> >
>> > -------------
>> >
>> > The PHP License, Version 2.02.
>> > This license is used by most of PHP4, but one important part of
>> > PHP4, the Zend optimizer, uses a different and worse license: the QPL.
>> >
>> > This is a non-copyleft free software license with practical
>> > problems like those of the original BSD license, including
>> > incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
>> >
>> > PHP3 is not under this license. PHP3 is disjunctively dual-licensed
>> > with the GNU GPL. Thus, while PHP4 (which is covered only by the PHP
>> > 2.02 License) is still free software, we encourage you to use and make
>> > improvements to only PHP3. That way, we can have an active version of
>> > PHP whose license is compatible with the GPL. If you are interested in
>> > helping maintain an active version of PHP3, please contact the GNU
>> > Volunteer Coordinators .
>> >
>> > and then the QPL
>> >
>> > The Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0.
>> > This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible
>> > with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience,
>> > because modified sources can only be distributed as patches.
>> >
>> > We recommend that you avoid using the QPL for anything that you
>> > write, and use QPL-covered software packages only when absolutely
>> > necessary. However, this avoidance no longer applies to Qt itself,
>> > since Qt is now also released under the GNU GPL.
>> >
>> > Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take a
>> > GPL-covered program and QPL-covered program and link them together, no
>> > matter how.
>> >
>> > However, if you have written a program that uses QPL-covered
>> > library(called FOO), and you want to release your program under
>> > the GNU GPL, you can easily do that. You can resolve the conflict
>> > for your program by adding a notice like this to it:
>> >
>> > As a special exception, you have permission to link this program
>> > with the FOO library and distribute executables, as long as you
>> > follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
>> > software in the executable aside from FOO.
>> >
>> > You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the
>> > program. Add it in the source files, after the notice that says the
>> > program is covered by the GNU GPL.
>> > ____________________________
>> > New Yorker Linux Users Scene
>> > Fair Use -
>> > because it's either fair use or useless....
>> ____________________________
>> New Yorker Linux Users Scene
>> Fair Use -
>> because it's either fair use or useless....
>>
>
>Brooklyn Linux Solutions
>__________________________
>http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
>http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn
>http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
>http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
>http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles
from around the net
>http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/dr.mp3 - Imagine my surprise when I saw you...
>http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
>
>1-718-382-5752
>
>
>
>____________________________
>New Yorker Linux Users Scene
>Fair Use -
>because it's either fair use or useless....
>
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
