MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-05-07 |
| FROM | From: "Brendan W. McAdms"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] php license
|
I guarantee you it is free software; there are pieces of the core that
belong to Zend, Inc. that are not 100% free, open software typically and are
contributed pro bono to the PHP team to assist in the project - all of it is
open, free source however as long as it is used in conjunction with the PHP
system. We work with what we are given.
Please don't diminish the work that I and others have done over the last
several years - PHP is a great product and is OPEN SOURCE in every sense of
the word. I don't care what ESR and "OpenSource, Inc." have to say. They
are NOT the final word in the free software world. Nor are those cronies at
FSF (And I apologize to Mike and some of the people I know over at FSF who
certainly do NOT fit this description. Your overinflated zealot colleagues
have forced it upon your group).
There are reasons for it's license, I agree the PHP License isn't the best
of licenses; I personally am not happy with the direction the group has
taken regarding the whole Zend thing but it is a great product and the
"corporate sponsorship" we get from the Zend Engine allows for a much
stronger system.
And oh yes, thanks to me RedHat licenses some of it's own software under the
PHP license - god forbid! I spent long phone calls with their legal
department and the realization was that for RedHat's business and
protection, a BSD style license was actually better for them. Granted I was
trying to get something *I* wanted out of this, but the general fact is that
for everyone, a BSD style license is better and RedHat's legal department
recognized it. It goes to the whole idea of taking things one step at a
time.
There are certain reasons that I hold a strong grudge against Richard
Stallman. After meeting ESR a few times and coming to the understanding
that to him "Open Source" means "Linux" [see:
http://relay.nuxi.com/~obrien/opensource-bullshit.mbox] I am starting to
feel the same way about him.
I have a great deal of respect for you Ruben; I would hate for that respect
to be thrown to the wayside after a rash of unfounded attacks based on
poorly founded principals spewed by overinflated zealots who do NOT speak
for the majority, despite their best efforts.
The GPL itself is a viral piece of crap which is completely incompatible
with reality. I have gone to great lengths to either relicense or remove
myself from any projects I am involved with using the GPL. Licenses like
BSD and the Perl Artistic license are much more sensible in the long run to
everyone involved.
I can't help but think some of this frustration stems from your personal
dislike for PHP. I recall your working with it and rather than giving it a
chance, consistantly denouncing it and insulting it because it wasn't perl,
and it didn't do things in a way that you approved of. I can't help but
recall the fact that *I* was deeply insulted at the time considering the
work I've done on that project; yet to you it was just another day in the
fight for Open Source. I kept my mouth shut at the time. I'm not so timid
this time around.
Keep in mind that the battle for free software will be won quietly and
slowly by the moderates. The ones who wear suits and ties and write the
code that makes the world goes around.
It is not a lightning revolution that can happen over night. And the
business world won't change on the word of a few screaming, ranting long
haired programmers in t-shirts and torn jeans.
Companies are very unlikely to let a license such as GPL walk into their
firm. Incorporating GPLed code forces them technically to open up all their
code through viral infection. What modern business wants this? A license
like BSD is more likely to meet a firm's needs in that they can slowly
incorporate open source, and slowly open different pieces of the code at
THEIR pace.
Open Source is not in itself exclusive to Linux. In general I find the BSDs
(primarily OpenBSD and FreeBSD ; I don't work much with NetBSD) to be much
more robust, far stronger offerings in the operating system category that
Linux could ever hope to be. And yes, they are open source licenses. And
yes, their licenses are much better for everyone.
Denouncing the work of others in the Open Source community and trashing
their work because Lord Stallman and his winged monkey minions say it
doesn't fit their view of the world will only serve to alienate you and your
group from our presence. And I guarantee you if you make it "us" (Linux/GPL
nuts) vs "them" (moderates with licenses such as BSD, who understand the
reality of the world) there will be alot more them. And you'll find
yourself backed into a corner.
The path to conversion is one of calmness. Showing quietly and rationally
how someone can benefit from a change. Not cramming it down their throat.
Human nature shows us that people are most resistant to change that is
forced upon them. Appealing to their sense of reason often goes much
further...
-Brendan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruben I Safir"
To: "Jonathan Bober"
Cc: "Ruben I Safir" ;
Sent: Tuesday, 07 May, 2002 00:53
Subject: Re: [hangout] php license
>
> GPL incompatible is not free.
>
> > The PHP license and the QPL are found under the section
GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses.
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> >
> > Thus, they are technically Free, just not very convenient.
> >
> > On Tue, 7 May 2002 00:27:17 -0400
> > Ruben I Safir wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That makes it not free software..
> > >
> > > On 2002.05.07 00:09 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....
> > > >
> > > --
> > > __________________________
> > >
> > > 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....
>
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
