Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73509
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1396396157.2982.255.camel@guybrush>
References: <1B2B9909-6710-45AE-ABAE-C5CDF9161D0F@gmail.com>
	<1396393440.2982.233.camel@guybrush>
	<1396396157.2982.255.camel@guybrush>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 17:35:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSy9N1V7MnE4cNevpqpBXuPb5HN9D_99823g26mtxBhbbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>
Cc: musicdenotation@gmail.com, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b471dfaf4bd1504f6047427
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for license change
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--047d7b471dfaf4bd1504f6047427
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Johannes Schl=FCter <johannes@schlueters.de=
>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> please don't top post - makes it harder to follow the discussion.
>
> On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 06:11 +0700, musicdenotation@gmail.com wrote:
> > 1, 2, 3. Zend?
>
> Nope.
>
> (well 3 (funding) they could, if they want, which I don't know and don't
> care; if there would be interest in going through that bureaucracy this
> would be solvable ... but I don't see such interest in the contributors
> community, I know there wasn't some years ago, maybe that changed, while
> I have strong doubts)
>
> > 4, 5. GPL compatibility is for users to use PHP in a GPL-licensed
> > project, not for PHP developers to include GPL-licensed code in their
> > PHP project.
>
> This always goes both ways. And mind: Even if we would strike this out
> of the PHP License you couldn't use PHP in GPL software easily. see i.e.
> the spprintf case I mentioned, or other places (see README.REDIST.BINS
> for a start) where we use foreign code. This would need to be replaced
> to become GPL-compatible.
>
> > 6. group@php.net may license the mark unconditionally for licensees to
> > achieve the same effect as "removing the clause".
>
> This becomes a complicated legal debate, especially while observing
> international copyright and related law. There is no formal copyright
> assignment. An interpretation is that currently code is donated under
> PHP License terms. Significant (or actually even any) changes might void
> that.
>
>
> johannes
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I believe this discussion breaks down into two separate yet equally
important (cue Law & Order sound here) categories:  The merits of the idea
itself and the legal feasibility (or lack thereof) of implementing it.

Merits:  I think it's a great idea.  The "PHP" name usage restriction is
outdated and pointless.  Numerous projects already exist that have been
allowed to use it by permission, such as phpMyAdmin.  Since PHP has no
single "owner", permission is as simple as just posting to the general list
and an indeterminate number of people responding with something along the
lines of, "Sure, knock yourself out."  In other words, it's become a
confusing and useless formality.  That provision remains a thorn in the
side of PHP existing as a truly FOSS-compatible project, at least in
principle.  And, as far as I know, that provision does absolutely nothing
for us.

Legal:  I can't really speculate much on this one as I'm not a legal
expert.  I imagine the same applies to most people here.  There are many
attorneys out there who specialize in this sort of thing.  I'm pretty sure
there are also among them a good number who volunteer their time for OSS
consultations regarding matters such as this.

In fact, the Electronic Frontier Foundation provides pro bono legal
assistance for this very purpose.  More info here:

https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance

It might not be a bad idea to ask them about this and see if they'd be
willing to lend us some much-needed legal consultation on this for free.
 Thoughts?

--Kris

--047d7b471dfaf4bd1504f6047427--