My team’s ability to use the phpdbg utility hinges on OSI approval of its license. Language at https://www.php.net/license/ indicates that the PHP 3.01 license is OSI approved, but OSI disagrees; https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical shows approval only of the PHP 3.0 license. (The fact that 3.0 and 3.01 are substantively identical is no use to us at all.) OSI, for its part, indicates that per https://opensource.org/approval, only the “License Steward” of the PHP 3.01 license has standing to request that it be reviewed, via OSI’s License Review mailing list.
I would like to see the license review process there carried out as soon as possible, and might suggest that the apparent inaccuracy of the claim of OSI approval for 3.01 on php.net is a matter for concern.
Publicly available information does not yield any insight into who the “License Steward” of the PHP 3.01 license might be, or how to contact any responsible party at the PHP Group. If anyone can direct me appropriately or forward this message to someone who can, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks!
Hey All.
Am 04.03.20 um 10:05 schrieb Christoph M. Becker:
My team’s ability to use the phpdbg utility hinges on OSI approval of its license. Language at https://www.php.net/license/ indicates that the PHP 3.01 license is OSI approved, but OSI disagrees; https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical shows approval only of the PHP 3.0 license. (The fact that 3.0 and 3.01 are substantively identical is no use to us at all.) OSI, for its part, indicates that per https://opensource.org/approval, only the “License Steward” of the PHP 3.01 license has standing to request that it be reviewed, via OSI’s License Review mailing list.
I would like to see the license review process there carried out as soon as possible, and might suggest that the apparent inaccuracy of the claim of OSI approval for 3.01 on php.net is a matter for concern.
Publicly available information does not yield any insight into who the “License Steward” of the PHP 3.01 license might be, or how to contact any responsible party at the PHP Group. If anyone can direct me appropriately or forward this message to someone who can, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks!
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in
the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least
according to
https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/56567d31b331d3ab7814b36867579116eb14da86#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95a)
and I couldn't find that commit on svn.php.net any more to have more
information on it...
Insight would be highly appreciated ;-)
Cheers
Andreas
--
,,,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| http://hei.gl/root-ca |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hi!
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in
the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least
Probably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean
many things).
Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who
would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last
time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to
OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are
the same.
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in
the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at leastProbably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean
many things).Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who
would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last
time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to
OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are
the same.Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
I’m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up a conversation there, unless there are objections?
Cheers,
Ben
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in
the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at leastProbably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean
many things).Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who
would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last
time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to
OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are
the same.I’m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up a conversation there, unless there are objections?
On the contrary – that would be very much appreciated!
Thanks,
Christoph
Hi!
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in
the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at leastProbably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean
many things).Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who
would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last
time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to
OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are
the same.I’m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up a
conversation there, unless there are objections?
Please do. I ran into this the other day when I was rewriting the README
for Xdebug too:
https://github.com/xdebug/xdebug/commit/c4371d9d18957965a590daee13bca82ff5205324#diff-88b99bb28683bd5b7e3a204826ead112R92-R96
cheers,
Derick
--
PHP 7.4 Release Manager
Host of PHP Internals News: https://phpinternals.news
Like Xdebug? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done
in
the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at
least
according to
)
and I couldn't find that commit on svn.php.net any more to have more
information on it...Insight would be highly appreciated ;-)
My memory could fail me, but I believe there were debates coming from
Debian community around especially PECL extensions being Licensed under
PHP Licens 3.0 and the wording being sub-optimal. The new wording (and
website link) should make it clear that PECL (and PEAR) is "PHP
Software" while not being "PHP".
See this thread: https://news-web.php.net/php.pecl.dev/11927
johannes
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done
in
the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at
least
according to)
and I couldn't find that commit on svn.php.net any more to have more
information on it...Insight would be highly appreciated ;-)
My memory could fail me, but I believe there were debates coming from
Debian community around especially PECL extensions being Licensed under
PHP Licens 3.0 and the wording being sub-optimal. The new wording (and
website link) should make it clear that PECL (and PEAR) is "PHP
Software" while not being "PHP".See this thread: https://news-web.php.net/php.pecl.dev/11927
Here’s a good post related to the Debian discussion: https://lwn.net/Articles/604630/
Cheers,
Ben