MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-05-07 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] php license
|
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....
|
|
