MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-05-07 |
| FROM | Jonathan Bober
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] php license
|
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.
[...]
---
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.
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."
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, 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" than the GPL, because it has essentially no restrictions. On the
other hand, the GPL can be considered "more free," because of its
"viral" nature. It is intended to be this way, and to force code to
become Free rather than simply allow code to become Free.
I like the GPL, because I would like for ALL software to be Free, and
this is what the GPL is designed to accomplish. Others like the
BSD-license, because it allows for more choice. Others like the Lesser
GPL, because it is somewhere in between.
Freedom is about allowing the original developer choose how he wants his
code to be used, and all Free Software licenses are equal, although some
Free Software licenses are more equal than others.
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. And let me quote one more time "This license is a non-copyleft
FREE SOFTWARE license." I did NOT mean to start a large argument.
Jon Bober
On Mon, 6 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....
|
|
