Hello Wez.
Please explain what is this 'pdo-specs' thing and why CLA is needed to commit there.
For some reason I thought we've agreed that CLA/NDA-protected or any other restricted-access things should not be placed into PHP CVS.
pdo_odbc and other "read-but-do-not-write" stuff have already demonstrated how bad it works.
wez Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007 UTC
Modified files:
/CVSROOT avail loginfo
Log:
karma and ml for some pdo bitshttp://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/CVSROOT/avail?r1=1.1331&r2=1.1332&diff_format=u
Index: CVSROOT/avail
diff -u CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 CVSROOT/avail:1.1332
--- CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 Mon Nov 26 15:14:40 2007
+++ CVSROOT/avail Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007
@@ -313,6 +313,10 @@
avail|ramsey|pecl/uploadprogress
avail|ramsey|pecl/pdo_user+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
+avail|wez,andi,stas,iliaa|pdo-specs
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
All will be revealed soon.
--Wez.
Hello Wez.
Please explain what is this 'pdo-specs' thing and why CLA is needed
to commit there.For some reason I thought we've agreed that CLA/NDA-protected or any
other restricted-access things should not be placed into PHP CVS.
pdo_odbc and other "read-but-do-not-write" stuff have already
demonstrated how bad it works.wez Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007 UTC
Modified files:
/CVSROOT avail loginfo
Log:
karma and ml for some pdo bitshttp://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/CVSROOT/avail?r1=1.1331&r2=1.1332&diff_format=u
Index: CVSROOT/avail
diff -u CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 CVSROOT/avail:1.1332
--- CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 Mon Nov 26 15:14:40 2007
+++ CVSROOT/avail Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007
@@ -313,6 +313,10 @@
avail|ramsey|pecl/uploadprogress
avail|ramsey|pecl/pdo_user+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
+avail|wez,andi,stas,iliaa|pdo-specs--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
+^pdo-specs $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/loginfo.pl pdo-commits@lists.php.net $USER %{sVv}
For consistency with the rest of the commit dedicated mailinglists,
should this list be named -cvs@?
And out of curiosity (since the word is that Microsoft has a hand in
this), who will be the patent holder? ;)
-Hannes
All will be revealed soon.
--Wez.
Hello Wez.
Please explain what is this 'pdo-specs' thing and why CLA is needed
to commit there.For some reason I thought we've agreed that CLA/NDA-protected or any
other restricted-access things should not be placed into PHP CVS.
pdo_odbc and other "read-but-do-not-write" stuff have already
demonstrated how bad it works.wez Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007 UTC
Modified files:
/CVSROOT avail loginfo
Log:
karma and ml for some pdo bitshttp://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/CVSROOT/avail?r1=1.1331&r2=1.1332&diff_format=u
Index: CVSROOT/avail
diff -u CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 CVSROOT/avail:1.1332
--- CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 Mon Nov 26 15:14:40 2007
+++ CVSROOT/avail Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007
@@ -313,6 +313,10 @@
avail|ramsey|pecl/uploadprogress
avail|ramsey|pecl/pdo_user+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
+avail|wez,andi,stas,iliaa|pdo-specs--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like that.
--Pierre
+^pdo-specs $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/loginfo.pl pdo-commits@lists.php.net $USER %{sVv}
For consistency with the rest of the commit dedicated mailinglists,
should this list be named -cvs@?And out of curiosity (since the word is that Microsoft has a hand in
this), who will be the patent holder? ;)-Hannes
All will be revealed soon.
--Wez.
Hello Wez.
Please explain what is this 'pdo-specs' thing and why CLA is needed
to commit there.For some reason I thought we've agreed that CLA/NDA-protected or any
other restricted-access things should not be placed into PHP CVS.
pdo_odbc and other "read-but-do-not-write" stuff have already
demonstrated how bad it works.wez Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007 UTC
Modified files:
/CVSROOT avail loginfo
Log:
karma and ml for some pdo bitshttp://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/CVSROOT/avail?r1=1.1331&r2=1.1332&diff_format=u
Index: CVSROOT/avail
diff -u CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 CVSROOT/avail:1.1332
--- CVSROOT/avail:1.1331 Mon Nov 26 15:14:40 2007
+++ CVSROOT/avail Tue Nov 27 18:53:17 2007
@@ -313,6 +313,10 @@
avail|ramsey|pecl/uploadprogress
avail|ramsey|pecl/pdo_user+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
+avail|wez,andi,stas,iliaa|pdo-specs--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like
that.
I find it amazing how oblivious to community concerns this all is.
Anyways, from some other discussions I gathered that the main thing
that is currently being talked about is CLA's. Once they have a CLA
in place they will "open" the discussions. From what I hear at least
part of the previous "secret" discussions will then be opened as well
via some kind of archive.
To me the key piece that would kill the idea of a CLA is if it
required me to be able to grant all patents that may be covering any
of the code I contribute. So far all the CLA's I have read seemed to
imply this. And from my understanding this is what makes the CLA work
for companies. The alternate interpretation [1], that the Apache CLA
and its many derived CLAs, only requires that you grant all patents
that knowingly cover the given code, seems bogus to me, since that
would defeat the purpose of the CLA to begin with. And that is to be
able to deflect all law suits aimed at the project and its users, by
pointing the finger at a single developer. The idea being that single
developers are no interesting targets for patent trolls. I find this
claim, that most OSS projects keep repeating, so hideously evil. If
all you need is to ensure that only single developers are to blame
for patent violations, than the patent system would probably quickly
get an update (because then even our friends at IBM, SUN etc would
start to care - they do like software patents, do not let yourself
get confused by their patent pool schemes).
The point is, there is no guarantee that a patent holder will not
still proceed to sue developer Joe Schmo. Number one, not all of us
stay poor, but more importantly it will just take a few law suits to
teach all the developers in the world that all the guys that gave you
friendly advice on CLA's were either lying or uninformed (or lying
about being informed). However all the Joe Schmo developers that were
taught this lesson can kiss happy life good bye.
Now without CLA's, there would be more incentive for companies like
IBM and SUN to actually take a different approach to software
patents, like using their happy lobby money to actually put an end to
them. Or invalidate the patent claim in question, because otherwise
they can be sued as well for using the given code, since they do not
have a patent grant from Joe Schmo.
I have asked IBM to validate the legal situation with a proper legal
analysis (which I might still get cross checked by a lawyer of my
choice), but I do not know if my contact at IBM was too lazy to
actually ask, or if IBM just chose to not answer because they know
full well that CLAs is essentially using developers as bumpers. And
when the big guys slam into each other .. there is not much left of
the bumpers in between.
regards,
Lukas
[1] http://osdir.com/ml/java.harmony.devel/2006-02/msg00344.html
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like that.
I find it amazing how oblivious to community concerns this all is.
Anyways, from some other discussions I gathered that the main thing that
is currently being talked about is CLA's. Once they have a CLA in place
they will "open" the discussions. From what I hear at least part of the
previous "secret" discussions will then be opened as well via some kind
of archive.
I agree. As most of you know, I met with IBM a couple of years ago the
last time they were keen on getting a CLA in place so they could
contribute more. I voiced my skepticism, but kept an open mind and put
the ball in their court asking them to write up a detailed explanation
of how a CLA will help the average PHP contributor. They said they
would do that and disappeared never to be heard from again.
My stance on this hasn't changed. I don't care the slightest how a CLA
helps them, I want to hear what it does for us. The obvious benefit for
the project is to get more contributions, but the cost of those
contributions in terms of a CLA burden has to be weighed. And so far
nobody has adequately justified why the average PHP contributor should
sign a CLA.
The existing CLA stuff on IBM-specific stuff like DB2, SDO and IDS was
something I didn't care much about since it was pretty much entirely an
IBM effort and I doubted there would be a general interest in those
things, which has pretty much turned out to be the case. But I am very
much against expanding this to cover more of PHP and encroaching on
general-purpose things that a large number of non-patent encumbered PHP
contributors would have an interest in.
So yes, before this goes any further, we need full disclosure here and a
really well thought out explanation by someone convincing us of the
benefits of signing a CLA. Barring that, I am with Marcus and Lukas on
this. Keep it out of PHP CVS and host it somewhere else.
-Rasmus
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like that.
I find it amazing how oblivious to community concerns this all is.
Anyways, from some other discussions I gathered that the main thing that
is currently being talked about is CLA's. Once they have a CLA in place
they will "open" the discussions. From what I hear at least part of the
previous "secret" discussions will then be opened as well via some kind
of archive.I agree. As most of you know, I met with IBM a couple of years ago the
last time they were keen on getting a CLA in place so they could
contribute more. I voiced my skepticism, but kept an open mind and put
the ball in their court asking them to write up a detailed explanation
of how a CLA will help the average PHP contributor. They said they
would do that and disappeared never to be heard from again.My stance on this hasn't changed. I don't care the slightest how a CLA
helps them, I want to hear what it does for us. The obvious benefit for
the project is to get more contributions, but the cost of those
contributions in terms of a CLA burden has to be weighed. And so far
nobody has adequately justified why the average PHP contributor should
sign a CLA.The existing CLA stuff on IBM-specific stuff like DB2, SDO and IDS was
something I didn't care much about since it was pretty much entirely an
IBM effort and I doubted there would be a general interest in those
things, which has pretty much turned out to be the case. But I am very
much against expanding this to cover more of PHP and encroaching on
general-purpose things that a large number of non-patent encumbered PHP
contributors would have an interest in.So yes, before this goes any further, we need full disclosure here and a
really well thought out explanation by someone convincing us of the
benefits of signing a CLA. Barring that, I am with Marcus and Lukas on
this. Keep it out of PHP CVS and host it somewhere else.-Rasmus
--
Without sounding too naive on this, I hope, isn't it also possible
that IBM's internal policies require them to have CLAs in place for
tax and documentation purposes? Or perhaps to cover their own
engineers from liability by claiming them as open source developers,
protected under the agreement accepted, ultimately, by the end user.
I'd concur that it doesn't belong in the PHP CVS because it's out
of the scope and spirit of the initial project, but is it really such
a Big Brother issue? It states that all developers are completely
free to use and redistribute any code they commit to the repository
and the project as a whole, and further, that any user can then use it
freely to create derivative works from said code, et cetera.
Of course, it does lay the groundwork for new licensing in the
future, whereby this project could eventually take on more and more of
PHP, until a project that began as open source joins the ranks as a
commercial competitor to ASP and Java.
Then again, maybe I'm missing something or just blowing smoke out
of my ass. I'm exhausted, but I'm trying to understand a bit more
about the hot-button parts of the issue.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
Daniel Brown wrote:
Without sounding too naive on this, I hope, isn't it also possiblethat IBM's internal policies require them to have CLAs in place for
tax and documentation purposes? Or perhaps to cover their own
engineers from liability by claiming them as open source developers,
protected under the agreement accepted, ultimately, by the end user.
Like I said, I understand why they need a CLA, and they can develop
stuff under whatever terms they want. It is only the final license of
what they produce that should matter to most people. The sticky point
is if this CLA requirement starts bleeding out of fringe things very
specific to a certain product and starts infecting general PHP
components like all of PDO instead of just a specific PDO driver.
-Rasmus
Hello Daniel,
I do not care for IBM problems. Not at all. If people want to commit they
can do it in their free time. If IBM now thinks they have to make PHP
suitable for their own stuff then they are obviously willing to spend quite
some interest because they have a much bigger business interest. That said I
am confident they can find ways to deal with it inside IBM itself. But they
do not like to do it as that would be much more expensive for them. Also the
trouble is that then they would need to be real open source. So why in the
end not force everybody to sign a CLA. Everybody meaning every sinegle
developer on the PHP project. That is from the guy that translates
documentation every once in a while to people working on the core like me
(And for me it would mean I will instantly stop contribution to PHP at all).
And in the long run what are the consequences? Where do we stop? IBM is only
one drive behind all this. Actually this is driven by more bigger companies.
And the all share the same problem and they all want the same. Today PHP is
something that makes money when you can run it on your server fast. So that
creates business interest. And business interest creats the will to take
over control in anyway and ownership. So in the very long way, will we loose
the PHP License (or will it be rewritten?). Open source means open
discussions. If something has to be discussed in some hidden rooms than that
is not open source! And if something has to be forced over us then that is
not the spirit of PHP. In the past eleven years we have been discussing
everything openly. We all sometimes hated this openness but on the other
hand it is also part of the success of PHP. So what to hell with all this?
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 12:13:51 AM, you wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
One word: transparency.
It is amazing how it helps to discuss things instead of acting like that.
I find it amazing how oblivious to community concerns this all is.
Anyways, from some other discussions I gathered that the main thing that
is currently being talked about is CLA's. Once they have a CLA in place
they will "open" the discussions. From what I hear at least part of the
previous "secret" discussions will then be opened as well via some kind
of archive.I agree. As most of you know, I met with IBM a couple of years ago the
last time they were keen on getting a CLA in place so they could
contribute more. I voiced my skepticism, but kept an open mind and put
the ball in their court asking them to write up a detailed explanation
of how a CLA will help the average PHP contributor. They said they
would do that and disappeared never to be heard from again.My stance on this hasn't changed. I don't care the slightest how a CLA
helps them, I want to hear what it does for us. The obvious benefit for
the project is to get more contributions, but the cost of those
contributions in terms of a CLA burden has to be weighed. And so far
nobody has adequately justified why the average PHP contributor should
sign a CLA.The existing CLA stuff on IBM-specific stuff like DB2, SDO and IDS was
something I didn't care much about since it was pretty much entirely an
IBM effort and I doubted there would be a general interest in those
things, which has pretty much turned out to be the case. But I am very
much against expanding this to cover more of PHP and encroaching on
general-purpose things that a large number of non-patent encumbered PHP
contributors would have an interest in.So yes, before this goes any further, we need full disclosure here and a
really well thought out explanation by someone convincing us of the
benefits of signing a CLA. Barring that, I am with Marcus and Lukas on
this. Keep it out of PHP CVS and host it somewhere else.-Rasmus
--
Without sounding too naive on this, I hope, isn't it also possiblethat IBM's internal policies require them to have CLAs in place for
tax and documentation purposes? Or perhaps to cover their own
engineers from liability by claiming them as open source developers,
protected under the agreement accepted, ultimately, by the end user.
I'd concur that it doesn't belong in the PHP CVS because it's outof the scope and spirit of the initial project, but is it really such
a Big Brother issue? It states that all developers are completely
free to use and redistribute any code they commit to the repository
and the project as a whole, and further, that any user can then use it
freely to create derivative works from said code, et cetera.
Of course, it does lay the groundwork for new licensing in thefuture, whereby this project could eventually take on more and more of
PHP, until a project that began as open source joins the ranks as a
commercial competitor to ASP and Java.
Then again, maybe I'm missing something or just blowing smoke outof my ass. I'm exhausted, but I'm trying to understand a bit more
about the hot-button parts of the issue.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
Best regards,
Marcus
I do not care for IBM problems. Not at all. If people want to commit
they can do it in their free time. If IBM now thinks they have to make
PHP suitable for their own stuff then they are obviously willing to
spend quite some interest because they have a much bigger business
interest. That said I am confident they can find ways to deal with it
inside IBM itself. But they do not like to do it as that would be much
more expensive for them. Also the trouble is that then they would need
to be real open source.
To add to this, I think that if IBM (and others) are so keen on having
PHP support their nice databases, they should also realize that it is
them that should be nice to us and not the other way around. We (as in
PHP project) shouldn't have to change the ways how we're dealing with
contributions at all. It should be the big companies that actually have
a financial interested in PHP supporting their software that open up
more and appease us.
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
I do not care for IBM problems. Not at all. If people want to commit
they can do it in their free time. If IBM now thinks they have to make
PHP suitable for their own stuff then they are obviously willing to
spend quite some interest because they have a much bigger business
interest. That said I am confident they can find ways to deal with it
inside IBM itself. But they do not like to do it as that would be much
more expensive for them. Also the trouble is that then they would need
to be real open source.To add to this, I think that if IBM (and others) are so keen on having
PHP support their nice databases, they should also realize that it is
them that should be nice to us and not the other way around. We (as in
PHP project) shouldn't have to change the ways how we're dealing with
contributions at all. It should be the big companies that actually have
a financial interested in PHP supporting their software that open up
more and appease us.regards,
Derick--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
Well, like I said at the tail of my last message, I was exhausted.
This morning, over a nice, hot cup of coffee (very welcome after
coming in from the snow outside), I took a better look at the whole
thing. That, coupled with your responses (thank you, Rasmus, Marcus,
and Derick), gives a much clearer picture. What concerns me now is
that I - and I'm sure many others - wasn't even aware of this until
this thread popped up. It almost seems like the beginnings of a
long-term hostile takeover plan, beginning quietly in the shadows.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
this thread popped up. It almost seems like the beginnings of a
long-term hostile takeover plan, beginning quietly in the shadows.
Come on... Really.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
this thread popped up. It almost seems like the beginnings of a
long-term hostile takeover plan, beginning quietly in the shadows.Come on... Really.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
It would certainly be cheaper than the $3.3 Billion they bid for Lotus.
P.S. - Apparently sarcasm isn't always read as such. I may have
used a sarcasm-less MIME type when sending. ;-P
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
To add to this, I think that if IBM (and others) are so keen on having
PHP support their nice databases, they should also realize that it is
them that should be nice to us and not the other way around. We (as in
What I really don't understand is why so many people are so quick to
jump into "us vs. them" attitude. Is there a war or what? Isn't there
enough conflict so that one must look so hard to create a new one?
Or maybe it is worth considering that having good database support is
good for both PHP and IBM?
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Hello Stanislav,
noone disagrees to any work any company is willing to do. Infact we should
be extremely happy about the work done by some IBM people lately (to stay
with the same company example). At least I am for one really happy! However
hiding in some secret rooms and deciding something that might or migfht not
affect everyone in the PHP company is different. It is different from any
kind of spirit we had and developed in more than ten years. It is different
from some access controls executed over CVS to not loose control and
directing responsibilities. It simply is not open source. Just read a
dictionary on "open" and the web provides enough written stuff on "open
source". Let's keep it open and maintain the PHP spirit. That does not
prevent any company of contributing to open source. If so then they are not
willing to do open source. Then they have to accept the open source model.
Not the open source model has to change.
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 5:59:50 PM, you wrote:
To add to this, I think that if IBM (and others) are so keen on having
PHP support their nice databases, they should also realize that it is
them that should be nice to us and not the other way around. We (as in
What I really don't understand is why so many people are so quick to
jump into "us vs. them" attitude. Is there a war or what? Isn't there
enough conflict so that one must look so hard to create a new one?
Or maybe it is worth considering that having good database support is
good for both PHP and IBM?Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Best regards,
Marcus
What I really don't understand is why so many people are so quick to jump
into "us vs. them" attitude. Is there a war or what? Isn't there enough
conflict so that one must look so hard to create a new one?
Or maybe it is worth considering that having good database support is good
for both PHP and IBM?
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS. Just that
there's a new module there that nobody wants to talk to php.net about
(apparently) and that has a CLA attached. You say 'good database support',
but that's one thing more than we know. Nobody was very happy about it the
last time there was a CLA attached to a php.net project, so why would they
be happy about it now?
As for 'us vs. them' - surely the CLA and the ensuing silence are the
separators here, rather than the protests against the lack of transparency?
- Steph
What I really don't understand is why so many people are so quick to jump
into "us vs. them" attitude. Is there a war or what? Isn't there enough
conflict so that one must look so hard to create a new one?
Or maybe it is worth considering that having good database support is good
for both PHP and IBM?Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS. Just that
there's a new module there that nobody wants to talk to php.net about
(apparently) and that has a CLA attached. You say 'good database support',
but that's one thing more than we know. Nobody was very happy about it the
last time there was a CLA attached to a php.net project, so why would they
be happy about it now?As for 'us vs. them' - surely the CLA and the ensuing silence are the
separators here, rather than the protests against the lack of transparency?
- Steph
From my understanding of CLA's it mainly deals with patent sharing.
What patents does PHP own/license?
I would guess IBM have a LOT more patents than PHP. But PHP isn't a
real entity (again, as I understand it) - how can it own anything?
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Surely all this "us/them", "silence behind doors", etc., is just FUD?
If IBM, or anyone, wants to submit code to PHP it can only improve things.
We do have peer-review after all. If I can't even get 2 double quotes
into the windows version of exec() to allow it to support more things
with no BC, surely you're not going to just lay down and let IBM ruin
the game (and I'm not even saying they are going to ruin the game,
just that you have the option of not including their code!).
The idea of a major world player contributing to our lill' old PHP
sounds really exciting. The more the merrier, as long as the
peer-review process works (and it seems to have kept me out of the
core well enough!), let them come!
Richard.
--
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing anything with the code. As in:
+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
That's what 'unavail' means.
Surely all this "us/them", "silence behind doors", etc., is just FUD?
Show me where there's been any open discussion and I'll agree with you.
If IBM, or anyone, wants to submit code to PHP it can only improve things.
Sure, but if IBM, or anyone, wants to prevent the people who work on the PHP
core from touching that code don't you think there might be a teensy bit of
an issue there?
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
- Steph
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing anything with the code. As in:+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specsThat's what 'unavail' means.
Surely all this "us/them", "silence behind doors", etc., is just FUD?
Show me where there's been any open discussion and I'll agree with you.
If IBM, or anyone, wants to submit code to PHP it can only improve things.
Sure, but if IBM, or anyone, wants to prevent the people who work on the PHP
core from touching that code don't you think there might be a teensy bit of
an issue there?We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
- Steph
--
Ok this is driving me nuts:
http://url.ie/730
or
http://tinyurl.com/2242cf
(They are both going to the same place but some people have preferences)
--
David Coallier,
Founder & Software Architect,
Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com)
51.42.06.70.18
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing anything with the code. As in:+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specsThat's what 'unavail' means.
Surely all this "us/them", "silence behind doors", etc., is just FUD?
Show me where there's been any open discussion and I'll agree with you.
If IBM, or anyone, wants to submit code to PHP it can only improve things.
Sure, but if IBM, or anyone, wants to prevent the people who work on the PHP
core from touching that code don't you think there might be a teensy bit of
an issue there?We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
- Steph
--
Ok this is driving me nuts:
http://url.ie/730
or
http://tinyurl.com/2242cf(They are both going to the same place but some people have preferences)
--
David Coallier,
Founder & Software Architect,
Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com)
51.42.06.70.18
Dave,
There was no place for me to type my response to the final question. ;-P
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it
prevents any of the core contributors doing anything with the code.
As in:+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specsThat's what 'unavail' means.
Surely all this "us/them", "silence behind doors", etc., is just FUD?
Show me where there's been any open discussion and I'll agree with
you.If IBM, or anyone, wants to submit code to PHP it can only improve
things.Sure, but if IBM, or anyone, wants to prevent the people who work
on the PHP core from touching that code don't you think there might
be a teensy bit of an issue there?We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.
Regards
--jm
- Steph
--
--
Jacques Marneweck
http://www.powertrip.co.za/
http://www.powertrip.co.za/blog/
http://www.ataris.co.za/
http://www.dataarchitects.co.za/
#include <std/disclaimer.h
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.
Someone told you that, or have you developed psychic powers?
The same applies, regardless. If a commit to that module breaks the PHP
manual build, you or I can't fix it. There was a time before now when a
CLA'd module broke the snaps build, same problem.
- Steph
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.Someone told you that, or have you developed psychic powers?
The same applies, regardless. If a commit to that module breaks the
PHP manual build, you or I can't fix it. There was a time before
now when a CLA'd module broke the snaps build, same problem.
FWIW, there is an IBM copyright attached to the "PDO Driver How-To"
document here:
http://php.net/manual/en/internals2.pdo.php
However, a ~couple months ago IBM gave permission to remove this
copyright (because the authors are listed as general contributors,
thus representing IBM) although we've not yet implemented this
removal. We did [temporary] remove it about six months ago but...
I'll make the update today.
Regards,
Philip
Hello Philip,
for the future please do not accept any copyright other than
"The PHP Group" or "The PHP documentation Grroup". Thanks.
Otherwise comanies are going to own PHP piece by piece.
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 9:59:08 PM, you wrote:
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.Someone told you that, or have you developed psychic powers?
The same applies, regardless. If a commit to that module breaks the
PHP manual build, you or I can't fix it. There was a time before
now when a CLA'd module broke the snaps build, same problem.
FWIW, there is an IBM copyright attached to the "PDO Driver How-To"
document here:
However, a ~couple months ago IBM gave permission to remove this
copyright (because the authors are listed as general contributors,
thus representing IBM) although we've not yet implemented this
removal. We did [temporary] remove it about six months ago but...
I'll make the update today.
Regards,
Philip
Best regards,
Marcus
Hello Philip,
for the future please do not accept any copyright other than
"The PHP Group" or "The PHP documentation Grroup". Thanks.
Otherwise comanies are going to own PHP piece by piece.
It was never accepted.
The docs, with the copyright, were committed without any notification
or heads up.
There were no indications that those docs were covered by CLA, I sure
hope they aren't since I have committed fixes to those files...
-Hannes
Hello Philip,
for the future please do not accept any copyright other than
"The PHP Group" or "The PHP documentation Grroup". Thanks.
Otherwise comanies are going to own PHP piece by piece.marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 9:59:08 PM, you wrote:
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.Someone told you that, or have you developed psychic powers?
The same applies, regardless. If a commit to that module breaks the
PHP manual build, you or I can't fix it. There was a time before
now when a CLA'd module broke the snaps build, same problem.FWIW, there is an IBM copyright attached to the "PDO Driver How-To"
document here:However, a ~couple months ago IBM gave permission to remove this
copyright (because the authors are listed as general contributors,
thus representing IBM) although we've not yet implemented this
removal. We did [temporary] remove it about six months ago but...
I'll make the update today.Regards,
Philip
In that case, you should:
-
Have a legal entity that you can assign copyright to (PHP Group and
PHP Documentation Group are not legal entities and therefore cannot
hold copyright) and -
Have a legal form that people "sign" (could be a simple DCO
attached to a submission) to assign their copyright to that legal
entity
We have neither of these things, so we're gesturing wildly and
passionately about copyright statements but ultimately looking rather
foolish.
In the world of academic publishing, the open access movement is
fighting hard to ensure that authors retain copyright when they
submit an article to a journal. Researchers license journals to
publish their articles, so that we don't have to pay multiple times to
access funded research (pay once to support the research, pay a second
time to subscribe to the journal in which the research has been
published).
You're confusing copyright with licenses. Copyright should be retained
by the author (of code or of documentation) - if they assign copyright
to another entity, they waive any right to reuse their own work in a
different forum - except under the terms under which that work is
licensed by the entity that now has the copyright for that material.
So an author can and should maintain copyright over the material they
contribute, but they contribute it under a license that specifies the
terms under which that material can be used (the PHP License, for this
project) by others.
--
Dan Scott
Laurentian University
In that case, you should:
- Have a legal entity that you can assign copyright to (PHP Group and
PHP Documentation Group are not legal entities and therefore cannot
hold copyright) and
Actually, I think the issue is more that:
However, a ~couple months ago IBM gave permission to remove this
copyright (because the authors are listed as general contributors,
thus representing IBM) although we've not yet implemented this
removal. We did [temporary] remove it about six months ago but...
There is no requirement in most countries* to show that something is
copyrighted, as it's a basic right. It's protected by default, so the
whole "© 2005 IBM Corporation" is unnecessary. None of the other
contributers ever required something like this.
- Atleast in the Netherlands, and what I gather from wikipedia also in
the US through the Berne convention
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works)
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
In that case, you should:
- Have a legal entity that you can assign copyright to (PHP Group and
PHP Documentation Group are not legal entities and therefore cannot
hold copyright) andActually, I think the issue is more that:
However, a ~couple months ago IBM gave permission to remove this
copyright (because the authors are listed as general contributors,
thus representing IBM) although we've not yet implemented this
removal. We did [temporary] remove it about six months ago but...There is no requirement in most countries* to show that something is
copyrighted, as it's a basic right. It's protected by default, so the
whole "(c) 2005 IBM Corporation" is unnecessary. None of the other
contributers ever required something like this.
- Atleast in the Netherlands, and what I gather from wikipedia also in
the US through the Berne convention
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works)regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
Derick,
You're completely correct, if they reside in a country that signed
on with the Berne Convention. The only reason one would want to
register the Copyright (in the United States) would be if there was
anticipated infringement for which the author or Copyright holder
would be eligible for legal recourse.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
However, a ~couple months ago IBM gave permission to remove this
copyright (because the authors are listed as general contributors,
thus representing IBM) although we've not yet implemented this
removal. We did [temporary] remove it about six months ago but...There is no requirement in most countries* to show that something is
copyrighted, as it's a basic right. It's protected by default, so the
whole "© 2005 IBM Corporation" is unnecessary. None of the other
contributers ever required something like this.
- Atleast in the Netherlands, and what I gather from wikipedia also in
the US through the Berne convention
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works)
TRIPS. Copyright is granted automatically and computer software is
regarded as "literal work". All World Trade Organization members sign it
(one chapter in your link). Only time travelers knew about computer
software in 1886.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:WTOmap_currentstatus.png&oldid=167880578
--
Tomas
Dan Scott wrote:
So an author can and should maintain copyright over the material they
contribute, but they contribute it under a license that specifies the
terms under which that material can be used (the PHP License, for this
project) by others.
Well, in theory, at least. Many open source projects ask for copyright
to be assigned to them (GNU is one notable example) because it 1. makes
changing licensing terms easier (for better or for worse) and 2. it
makes it a lot easier to prosecute copyright violation (single entity
versus multiple entities that have to coordinate).
See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
--
Edward Z. Yang GnuPG: 0x869C48DA
HTML Purifier http://htmlpurifier.org Anti-XSS Filter
[[ 3FA8 E9A9 7385 B691 A6FC B3CB A933 BE7D 869C 48DA ]]
Hi,
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
Steph the CLA seems to just relate to the docbook xml specifications
for PDO.
If the spec is CLAd what will the implementation be? Do you expect a
spec needs stronger protection than the code? I'd say it's usually the
other way round.
On a side-note: It's not only about peer review - without signing the
CLA one might still read the code and send reports to the maintainers.
But we can't maintain it! This is a major change in the development
process, currently everybody with CVS account, which you can get quite
easily compared to many other projects, can fix any bugs in every place
(ok, Zend/ and TSRMLS/ are a bit limited, but still) and if we decide on
a API change, like the recent change with refcounts the required fixes
can easily applied.
With code, which is bundled and under a CLA everybody who wants to do
even simple changes, fixing compile errors, ... is forced to sign it
for doing serious work.
If the active developers would agree on that (which I don't think will
ever happen) then there won't be a problem - but getting it from more or
less the outside without prior notification/discussion is plain stupid
imo.
Rules about the development process have to be set by the developers
doing the work, not by companies thinking "They did good work, let's
benefit from them." (even if they do some work for that - the main work
will still be done by others)
johannes
Hi Johannes,
On a side-note: It's not only about peer review - without signing the
CLA one might still read the code and send reports to the maintainers.
I was responding to Richard when I wrote that. He was operating under the
assumption that php.net have control over what goes into a CLA'd module, and
that's the sense in which 'peer review' was used in his post.
But we can't maintain it! This is a major change in the development
process, currently everybody with CVS account, which you can get quite
easily compared to many other projects, can fix any bugs in every place
(ok, Zend/ and TSRMLS/ are a bit limited, but still) and if we decide on
a API change, like the recent change with refcounts the required fixes
can easily applied.With code, which is bundled and under a CLA everybody who wants to do
even simple changes, fixing compile errors, ... is forced to sign it
for doing serious work.
Precisely.
- Steph
Hello Steph,
for example that would exclude me and I guess others as well.
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 6:49:34 PM, you wrote:
So, what, exactly, is the fuss all about?
Richard, the problem with a CLA (moral quibbles apart) is it prevents any of
the core contributors doing anything with the code. As in:
+# PDO Specs. CLA required to commit
+unavail||pdo-specs
That's what 'unavail' means.
Surely all this "us/them", "silence behind doors", etc., is just FUD?
Show me where there's been any open discussion and I'll agree with you.
If IBM, or anyone, wants to submit code to PHP it can only improve things.
Sure, but if IBM, or anyone, wants to prevent the people who work on the PHP
core from touching that code don't you think there might be a teensy bit of
an issue there?
We do have peer-review after all.
Not on CLA'd code we don't.
- Steph
Best regards,
Marcus
Richard Quadling wrote:
The idea of a major world player contributing to our lill' old PHP
sounds really exciting. The more the merrier, as long as the
peer-review process works (and it seems to have kept me out of the
core well enough!), let them come!
We welcome any and all contributions, of course, but where there are
strings attached it starts to get complicated. The problem here is that
IBM employees can't contribute to open source projects without some
protection in the form of a CLA. This CLA basically says that you have
the rights to the contributions you make and that if the company you
work for have copyrights or patents related to the contribution then you
grant all rights to the receiving project. On the surface it may not
sound too bad. It is sort of common sense that we aren't ripping off
proprietary code from somewhere and sticking it in PHP and that we don't
go out and get a patent on some concept and then put that code into PHP
in order to sue everyone using PHP for violating our patent.
However, the legal wording needed to do this looks something like this:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
It is long and complicated and I don't see how anybody could sign this
without getting legal advice. You would also need to pass this by the
legal department of the company you work for. Legal where I work
wouldn't let us sign something like this for the longest time. They are
working through it now, so it may be possible, but they had a long list
of concerns and various needs for clarification as I am sure any company
would have when their employees start signing legal documents affecting
their patent portfolio.
The end result is that I think there will be a significant number of
current PHP contributors who either can't, or won't, sign a CLA like
this. And if the code covered by this CLA is a significant part of PHP,
then we have an untenable position. I would like to be proven wrong on
this. I have had no part in these discussions, but from what people
tell me the proposed CLA is based on the Apache CLA listed above, so
have a careful read through that and make up your own mind.
-Rasmus
It is long and complicated and I don't see how anybody could sign this
without getting legal advice. You would also need to pass this by the
legal department of the company you work for. Legal where I work
wouldn't let us sign something like this for the longest time. They are
working through it now, so it may be possible, but they had a long list
of concerns and various needs for clarification as I am sure any company
would have when their employees start signing legal documents affecting
their patent portfolio.
Without taking a position one way or another on this particular piece
of software, which I know nothing about, I can say that I work for a
similar company as Rasmus, and I have had similar complications with
my legal team over ASF-style CLAs. If they're willing to approve them,
they want to edit them first, which, of course, they cannot do --
these are "take it or leave it" legal documents, which no lawyer
likes.
While those problem can be sometimes worked through, it usually comes
down to a risk / reward calculation. Is the risk of opening ourselves
up given the perceived vagueness of the CLA worth the return we will
get? It's hard to price the risk, but, honestly, I usually price the
return pretty low compared to opening up a large public company to
potentially losing a valuable patent, which makes it a hard bar to
hurdle.
I also don't enjoy spending my time this way, which is more of a
personal issue than a corporate one, but it does make me less
interested in working on those types of projects.
As an additional data point, I have had success getting them to agree
for us to release internal code under both BSD and CDDL open source
licenses, so they are not unfamiliar or unreceptive to these issues
and ideas.
-adam
--
adam@trachtenberg.com | http://www.trachtenberg.com
author of o'reilly's "upgrading to php 5" and "php cookbook"
avoid the holiday rush, buy your copies today!
We welcome any and all contributions, of course, but where there are
strings attached it starts to get complicated. The problem here is that
I thought the whole purpose of CLA was to ensure there are no strings
attached to the contributed code.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Hello Rasmus,
the same applies to me as I pointed out to Richard already (as an example
to Stephs argument). An NDA or CLA usually means that you can talk about
stuff you do that contains patents and all that. Now we are not intersted in
patents at all. And the solutiuon is easy keep your patent stuff at home or
make it freely available. Then you can easily get permission fomr a lawyer
to work on OSI complient stuff like PHP. If that was not the case then I
wonder how people from IBM or other big companies could ever contribute to
PHP. Since they did we obviously have no need at all for a CLA and anythign
that comes along with it or as a consequence.
marcus
Thursday, November 29, 2007, 10:03:56 PM, you wrote:
Richard Quadling wrote:
The idea of a major world player contributing to our lill' old PHP
sounds really exciting. The more the merrier, as long as the
peer-review process works (and it seems to have kept me out of the
core well enough!), let them come!
We welcome any and all contributions, of course, but where there are
strings attached it starts to get complicated. The problem here is that
IBM employees can't contribute to open source projects without some
protection in the form of a CLA. This CLA basically says that you have
the rights to the contributions you make and that if the company you
work for have copyrights or patents related to the contribution then you
grant all rights to the receiving project. On the surface it may not
sound too bad. It is sort of common sense that we aren't ripping off
proprietary code from somewhere and sticking it in PHP and that we don't
go out and get a patent on some concept and then put that code into PHP
in order to sue everyone using PHP for violating our patent.
However, the legal wording needed to do this looks something like this:
It is long and complicated and I don't see how anybody could sign this
without getting legal advice. You would also need to pass this by the
legal department of the company you work for. Legal where I work
wouldn't let us sign something like this for the longest time. They are
working through it now, so it may be possible, but they had a long list
of concerns and various needs for clarification as I am sure any company
would have when their employees start signing legal documents affecting
their patent portfolio.
The end result is that I think there will be a significant number of
current PHP contributors who either can't, or won't, sign a CLA like
this. And if the code covered by this CLA is a significant part of PHP,
then we have an untenable position. I would like to be proven wrong on
this. I have had no part in these discussions, but from what people
tell me the proposed CLA is based on the Apache CLA listed above, so
have a careful read through that and make up your own mind.
-Rasmus
Best regards,
Marcus
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS. Just
And waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an option.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS. Just
And waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an option.
But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from without discussion is?
- Steph
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS.
JustAnd waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an
option.But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from without discussion is?
Right .. and there is still nothing published. The "complainers" are
definitely the ones to point to as the "first to shoot." Anyways the
definition of a "soon" let alone "few weeks" is getting stretched by
now.
That being said, from all I have heard the CLA thing is not something
that only IBM is pushing in this context. There are multiple
companies that are involved behind the scenes, including MySQL AB.
And yes MySQL AB also has a CLA, so does ez Systems. The key question
is about the patent clause, not about the copyright. Here the
question is what exactly I as a contributor promise. Do I promise
that I own and grant licenses to all the relevant patents or just
that if I happen to own any patents that cover the contributed code,
that I also grant a license. The former would be unacceptable by my
standards (and by pretty much everyone I have talked to on the
matter), while the former seems to be ok (while still being a
hinderance for some people who are employed by larger companies) to
stop/hinder patent trolls.
regards,
Lukas
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source projects
(Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to grant an
unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to use your
contribution, and, if you hold patents on this invention, that you
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not require
that you guarantee that your contribution is not violating any 3rd-
party patents.
David
Am 20.12.2007 um 16:08 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS.
JustAnd waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an
option.But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from without discussion is?Right .. and there is still nothing published. The "complainers" are
definitely the ones to point to as the "first to shoot." Anyways the
definition of a "soon" let alone "few weeks" is getting stretched by
now.That being said, from all I have heard the CLA thing is not
something that only IBM is pushing in this context. There are
multiple companies that are involved behind the scenes, including
MySQL AB. And yes MySQL AB also has a CLA, so does ez Systems. The
key question is about the patent clause, not about the copyright.
Here the question is what exactly I as a contributor promise. Do I
promise that I own and grant licenses to all the relevant patents or
just that if I happen to own any patents that cover the contributed
code, that I also grant a license. The former would be unacceptable
by my standards (and by pretty much everyone I have talked to on the
matter), while the former seems to be ok (while still being a
hinderance for some people who are employed by larger companies) to
stop/hinder patent trolls.regards,
Lukas
Hello David, Lukas,
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
agreement here by telling us stuff you learned while being part of that
group - or you are speculating. You should however not do that! Maybe not
even IBM is interested in that stuff? So far all I see is some IBM people
comitting stuff to PHP. All happily done accepting our normal rules.
marcus
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 4:31:34 PM, you wrote:
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source projects
(Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to grant an
unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to use your
contribution, and, if you hold patents on this invention, that you
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not require
that you guarantee that your contribution is not violating any 3rd-
party patents.
David
Am 20.12.2007 um 16:08 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS.
JustAnd waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an
option.But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from without discussion is?Right .. and there is still nothing published. The "complainers" are
definitely the ones to point to as the "first to shoot." Anyways the
definition of a "soon" let alone "few weeks" is getting stretched by
now.That being said, from all I have heard the CLA thing is not
something that only IBM is pushing in this context. There are
multiple companies that are involved behind the scenes, including
MySQL AB. And yes MySQL AB also has a CLA, so does ez Systems. The
key question is about the patent clause, not about the copyright.
Here the question is what exactly I as a contributor promise. Do I
promise that I own and grant licenses to all the relevant patents or
just that if I happen to own any patents that cover the contributed
code, that I also grant a license. The former would be unacceptable
by my standards (and by pretty much everyone I have talked to on the
matter), while the former seems to be ok (while still being a
hinderance for some people who are employed by larger companies) to
stop/hinder patent trolls.regards,
Lukas--
Best regards,
Marcus
Sure, Marcus, I understand that. I was just explaining to Lukas what
this commonly used CLA variant mandates.
David
P.S: in strict legal terms, even in PHP, you just implicitly grant a
perpetual, royalty-free etc license to the PHP project by committing a
changeset as in many European countries, such as Germany, copyright is
not transferrable.
Am 20.12.2007 um 17:07 schrieb Marcus Boerger:
Hello David, Lukas,
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP
project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
agreement here by telling us stuff you learned while being part of
that
group - or you are speculating. You should however not do that!
Maybe not
even IBM is interested in that stuff? So far all I see is some IBM
people
comitting stuff to PHP. All happily done accepting our normal rules.marcus
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 4:31:34 PM, you wrote:
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source projects
(Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to grant an
unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to use your
contribution, and, if you hold patents on this invention, that you
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not require
that you guarantee that your contribution is not violating any 3rd-
party patents.David
Am 20.12.2007 um 16:08 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS.
JustAnd waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an
option.But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from without discussion is?Right .. and there is still nothing published. The "complainers" are
definitely the ones to point to as the "first to shoot." Anyways the
definition of a "soon" let alone "few weeks" is getting stretched by
now.That being said, from all I have heard the CLA thing is not
something that only IBM is pushing in this context. There are
multiple companies that are involved behind the scenes, including
MySQL AB. And yes MySQL AB also has a CLA, so does ez Systems. The
key question is about the patent clause, not about the copyright.
Here the question is what exactly I as a contributor promise. Do I
promise that I own and grant licenses to all the relevant patents or
just that if I happen to own any patents that cover the contributed
code, that I also grant a license. The former would be unacceptable
by my standards (and by pretty much everyone I have talked to on the
matter), while the former seems to be ok (while still being a
hinderance for some people who are employed by larger companies) to
stop/hinder patent trolls.regards,
Lukas--
Best regards,
Marcus
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
agreement here by telling us stuff you learned while being part of
that
group - or you are speculating. You should however not do that!
Maybe not
even IBM is interested in that stuff? So far all I see is some IBM
people
comitting stuff to PHP. All happily done accepting our normal rules.
I did not sign anything, and I am not part of a secret group. But I
heard that multiple companies are involved and that MySQL AB is
involved. Thats all.
regards,
Lukas
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
Copyright and patents are different things, and unfortunately no, it's
not all that should ever be necessary. For instance, it is necessary
that the stuff would be yours :) There also are a lot of other things.
even IBM is interested in that stuff? So far all I see is some IBM people
comitting stuff to PHP. All happily done accepting our normal rules.
Some is done under PHP rules, some is done with CLAs.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Hello Stanislav,
since when has anything in PHP core required a CLA? And whay change that now?
marcus
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 6:59:53 PM, you wrote:
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
Copyright and patents are different things, and unfortunately no, it's
not all that should ever be necessary. For instance, it is necessary
that the stuff would be yours :) There also are a lot of other things.
even IBM is interested in that stuff? So far all I see is some IBM people
comitting stuff to PHP. All happily done accepting our normal rules.
Some is done under PHP rules, some is done with CLAs.
Best regards,
Marcus
since when has anything in PHP core required a CLA?
I think you know the answer to that.
And why change that now?
There could be the reasons to do it (some described in this thread), and
the reasons not to do it. But before deciding which ones are better, I'd
propose to understand what it is all about - which many people on the
list do not.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Hello Stanislav,
there is nothing to discuss here, unless you personally keep insisting on.
We have lived pretty damn good without any such thing. And alone the fact
that requiring an NDA to be signed will kick out core developers should be
enough for you to ever know. Unless you prefer to get rid of people like me.
marcus
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 8:21:30 PM, you wrote:
since when has anything in PHP core required a CLA?
I think you know the answer to that.
And why change that now?
There could be the reasons to do it (some described in this thread), and
the reasons not to do it. But before deciding which ones are better, I'd
propose to understand what it is all about - which many people on the
list do not.Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Best regards,
Marcus
there is nothing to discuss here, unless you personally keep insisting on.
If you don't have anything to discuss, then don't ;)
We have lived pretty damn good without any such thing. And alone the fact
that requiring an NDA to be signed will kick out core developers should be
enough for you to ever know. Unless you prefer to get rid of people like me.
I can't believe you don't know the difference between NDA and CLA.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Hello Stanislav,
replace the damn sentence with CLA then. I don't care what the damn thing
is called. PHP needs neither a CLA nor a NDA. And yes I have signed both
stuff in the past for various reasons. And it has always been a pain and
still continues to be.
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 8:39:50 PM, you wrote:
there is nothing to discuss here, unless you personally keep insisting on.
If you don't have anything to discuss, then don't ;)
There is apparently something. I won't let you continue. You cannot shut me
up because you don't like me disagreeing on any NDA or CLA. Yet unless as
mentioned you wanted to get rid of me.
We have lived pretty damn good without any such thing. And alone the fact
that requiring an NDA to be signed will kick out core developers should be
enough for you to ever know. Unless you prefer to get rid of people like me.
I can't believe you don't know the difference between NDA and CLA.
Best regards,
Marcus
There is apparently something. I won't let you continue. You cannot shut me
up because you don't like me disagreeing on any NDA or CLA. Yet unless as
I never intended to shut you up - you said that there's nothing to
discuss. Apparently, there is :)
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source
projects (Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to
grant an unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to
use your contribution, and, if you hold patents on this
invention, that you grant the same for those patents you own. Those
CLAs do not require that you guarantee that your contribution is
not violating any 3rd-party patents.
IANAL, but this is not what I read in these licenses. Zak told me
that this is what the ez System CLA is supposed to say as well, but I
simply do not see that in there. I have asked IBM to clear up this
point back when they first started pushing CLA's for PECL packages,
but they never got back. Anyways, maybe I am just dense, but maybe
all the CLA authors should just put in an effort to make it possible
for people to understand their licenses without having to consult a
lawyer.
regards,
Lukas
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Anyways, maybe I am just dense, but maybe all the CLA authors
should just put in an effort to make it possible for people to
understand their licenses without having to consult a lawyer.
Maybe, just maybe, it was "just" a bad idea to start this "discussion"
with a CVS commit.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
Maybe, just maybe, it was "just" a bad idea to start this "discussion"
with a CVS commit.
Maybe, but so far all that was committed is old PDO spec. Not even a
line of code.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
David
Am 20.12.2007 um 17:26 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source
projects (Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to
grant an unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to
use your contribution, and, if you hold patents on this
invention, that you grant the same for those patents you own. Those
CLAs do not require that you guarantee that your contribution is
not violating any 3rd-party patents.IANAL, but this is not what I read in these licenses. Zak told me
that this is what the ez System CLA is supposed to say as well, but
I simply do not see that in there. I have asked IBM to clear up this
point back when they first started pushing CLA's for PECL packages,
but they never got back. Anyways, maybe I am just dense, but maybe
all the CLA authors should just put in an effort to make it possible
for people to understand their licenses without having to consult a
lawyer.regards,
Lukas
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
- Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
(except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have
made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the
Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims
licensable by You that are necessarily infringed by Your
Contribution(s) alone or by combination of Your Contribution(s)
with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If any
entity institutes patent litigation against You or any other entity
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging
that your Contribution, or the Work to which you have contributed,
constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any
patent licenses granted to that entity under this Agreement for
that Contribution or Work shall terminate as of the date such
litigation is filed.
This tells me that I need to have all patents that the code infringes
upon. I know that there is this "licensedable by You" thingi in
there, but sorry I cannot parse run on sentences like that. Does
licenseable by You mean that I have to grant the license or that I am
legaqlly entitled to even grant that license? I was taught in school
to use the "." every so often and if lawyers don't know how to
construct licenses that contain run on sentences, then I guess I am
not signing their bla bla.
- You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
license. If your employer(s) has rights to intellectual property
that you create that includes your Contributions, you represent
that you have received permission to make Contributions on behalf
of that employer, that your employer has waived such rights for
your Contributions to the Foundation, or that your employer has
executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.
I especially do not understand what "licenseable by You" means in the
light of section 4. which seems to be concerned about if I am allowed
to grant the "above" licenses. To me this means that in this case
"licensable by You" in the 3. section then means that they are
talking about the things I am supposed to license and not what I am
legally entitled to license. Which in turns means to me that 3.
requires that I grant a license to all patents the code infringes
upon and that number 4. mandates that I actually have the legal right
to grant those licenses.
regards,
Lukas
This tells me that I need to have all patents that the code infringes
upon. I know that there is this "licensedable by You" thingi in there,
but sorry I cannot parse run on sentences like that. Does licenseable by
You mean that I have to grant the license or that I am legaqlly entitled
to even grant that license? I was taught in school to use the "." every
so often and if lawyers don't know how to construct licenses that
contain run on sentences, then I guess I am not signing their bla bla.
That's of course is your choice, but if per chance you wanted to
understand what it says instead of finding a reason to reject it, here's
what you could do:
- Believe me (not being a lawyer) when I say "licenseable by you" means
you can (entitled) to give license for them, and the whole sentence
means that you grant license to patents that:
a. You can grant license to (otherwise it would be stupid to require you
to grant license to something you can't)
b. Needed to use the work (again, it would be stupid to require you to
grant license to some patents that have nothing to do with the work)
Meaning, from the whole set of all patents, you choose ones that posses
qualities (a) and (b) and if this set is not empty, this is what you are
licensing by signing the CLA and contributing. - Consult a lawyer
I'd go the first route, but that's me :)
BTW - I hope you don't think that if you didn't sign the CLA and you
contributed code to PHP that you didn't have rights to contribute, not
signing would help you in any way. Or that if you contributed code that
violates patents, not signing CLA would somehow make it any less trouble.
entitled to license. Which in turns means to me that 3. requires that I
grant a license to all patents the code infringes upon and that number
- mandates that I actually have the legal right to grant those licenses.
No, it does not. It means you grant a license to all patents the code
infringes AND you can grant the license to (either as individual owner
or as authorized representative of a corporate entity).
If you don't have such patents, then you should do whatever you should
do in all other cases - if the code is your own and you don't know of
any trouble with it, contribute it, otherwise don't.
P.S. IANAL, for those who didn't know that :)
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
BTW - I hope you don't think that if you didn't sign the CLA and
you contributed code to PHP that you didn't have rights to
contribute, not signing would help you in any way. Or that if you
contributed code that violates patents, not signing CLA would
somehow make it any less trouble.
Of course. The only difference being that if users of my code cannot
fallback on a CLA as a deflector, they have a much bigger interest in
getting the case thrown out. If they can fallback on a CLA they can
instead choose to just rewrite the code in question and leave me
alone while I fight in court to ever have fun in life again (and
again I believe its horrible that CLA proponents keep putting forth
the argument that single developers will not get dragged into court
anyways, so they need not worry).
regards,
Lukas
Of course. The only difference being that if users of my code cannot
fallback on a CLA as a deflector, they have a much bigger interest in
Deflector of what? CLA gives the users of the code reasonable - not
100%, but reasonably good - warranty that their behind stays out of
trouble when they use the code, because CLA signer is aware that he has
the rights to the code and gives the rights to use the code to them.
getting the case thrown out. If they can fallback on a CLA they can
instead choose to just rewrite the code in question and leave me alone
while I fight in court to ever have fun in life again (and again I
Fight in court with whom? On what charges? What the court suddenly has
to do with it and how we landed there at all?
believe its horrible that CLA proponents keep putting forth the argument
that single developers will not get dragged into court anyways, so they
need not worry).
I didn't hear such argument even once, so I have no idea who you are
arguing with right now.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
It is not clear at all. Or we are simply too stupid to understand it.
And as we don't agree on things we don't understand, let forget the
CLA once and for ever. I think there is a very large majority against.
No need to mention that PHP has lived more than 10 years without it.
And in this period it has been widely adopted in every parts of
internet related economy (intra, extra or internet applications). None
of the very large companies using PHP have had any issues with the PHP
licenses or the lack of CLA.
Don't try to solve a non problem or don't try to close the PHP
project, it is already hard enough to get in.
Thanks for your understanding and happy Christmas holidays,
internet related economy (intra, extra or internet applications). None
of the very large companies using PHP have had any issues with the PHP
licenses or the lack of CLA.
Just out of sheer curiosity - how many large companies did you ask about
having or not having problems in this regard?
Don't try to solve a non problem or don't try to close the PHP
project, it is already hard enough to get in.
Really? Hard enough like "subscribe to the list and start contributing
patches" as opposed to?
Thanks for your understanding and happy Christmas holidays,
Happy holidays to you too.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
internet related economy (intra, extra or internet applications). None
of the very large companies using PHP have had any issues with the PHP
licenses or the lack of CLA.Just out of sheer curiosity - how many large companies did you ask about
having or not having problems in this regard?
Enough to make my opinions, and hearing other colleagues in other
companies confirmed it. Certainly less than the sooo large customers
base of Zend but please don't be condescendent, it would be
innappropriate.
But maybe Zend may first clean up their own mind before creating
issues about non problem?
Don't try to solve a non problem or don't try to close the PHP
project, it is already hard enough to get in.Really? Hard enough like "subscribe to the list and start contributing
patches" as opposed to?
I think you know what I mean, take a look at the amount of complains
of people having hard times to contribute a patch or to get stuffs in.
ok, off to holidays now :)
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not require that
you guarantee that your contribution is not violating any 3rd-party
patents.
Nobody can require that, that'd be stupid - how one can guarantee nobody
has patent to something? Even very expensive patent search doesn't give
such guarantee - patent interpretations differ widely and there are
submarine patents. Only thing one can reasonably guarantee is that the
code is not covered by his own patents or he is granting license if it
is and that he doesn't knowingly use somebody else's patented technology
without having appropriate license.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not
require that you guarantee that your contribution is not violating
any 3rd-party patents.Nobody can require that, that'd be stupid - how one can guarantee
nobody has patent to something? Even very expensive patent search
doesn't give such guarantee - patent interpretations differ widely
and there are submarine patents. Only thing one can reasonably
guarantee is that the code is not covered by his own patents or he
is granting license if it is and that he doesn't knowingly use
somebody else's patented technology without having appropriate
license.
I also think its ridiculous to grant someone a patent on using
cookies (aka one click shopping) but still students of law apparently
have decided its a good idea. If the clause does indeed not mandate
that I grant all patents the code infringes upon, then the life of
patent trolls is still pretty easy. Whatever, I think the language is
not clear and I also am not willing to pay for a lawyer to get this
cleared up for me.
regards,
Lukas
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS. Just
And waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an option.
Hi,
This is a dangerous approach Stas, the "shoot first, explain later"
approach is a closed-source model. Fortunately, the bullet can be put
back into the gun by removing the CVSROOT unavail until there is at the
very least a notification email. A few days extra before committing
can't hurt unless we have a serious problem in PHP development. As
president of PEAR, I'd like to let you know that I am following this
debate extremely closely to see how things progress and more to the
point - how it is resolved. I'm sure that in the future a similar
question will come up for us should a CLA be adopted in PHP core for a
major component.
Thanks,
Greg
To add to this, I think that if IBM (and others) are so keen on having
PHP support their nice databases, they should also realize that it is
them that should be nice to us and not the other way around. We (as inWhat I really don't understand is why so many people are so quick to
jump into "us vs. them" attitude. Is there a war or what? Isn't there
enough conflict so that one must look so hard to create a new one?
Or maybe it is worth considering that having good database support is
good for both PHP and IBM?
To see a commit restricting access to something that looks like the
future of the most important part of php is everything you want but
acceptable. Not without previous discussion or at least one post of
internals. I don't think it is that hard to understand, isn't it?
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for <some company>'s products.
If one likes to contribute to a project, he has to adapt himself to
the project, not the other way 'round. That's the main problem here
and it is not the first time that such thing happens. It is what many
of us don't understand.
Regards,
--Pierre
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for <some company>'s products.
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't
use PHP just to commend us for oh so good process. Process is important,
but it's a tool, not the goal.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't
use PHP just to commend us for oh so good process. Process is important,
but it's a tool, not the goal.
Actually, I believe the latest Gallup Poll sponsored by CNN put
that number at 97.3%. ;-P
Besides, as I read the message you quoted, my understand was that
Pierre was inferring that it's more important for the community to
have standardized guidelines for contributions, rather than bend to
the whim of one party: in this case, IBM.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't
use PHP just to commend us for oh so good process. Process is important,
but it's a tool, not the goal.Actually, I believe the latest Gallup Poll sponsored by CNN putthat number at 97.3%. ;-P
Besides, as I read the message you quoted, my understand was thatPierre was inferring that it's more important for the community to
have standardized guidelines for contributions, rather than bend to
the whim of one party: in this case, IBM.
Ok, Kreskin - assuming you're as out of the loop as most of the rest
of us, if this is purely an IBM thing, why are MySQL AB employees
signing up for this (see CVS account request from Jay Pipes)? MySQL
AB has its own CLA for contributions to the MySQL code base:
http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Contributor_License_Agreement. Maybe
they're the ones pushing for a CLA this time around.
--
Dan Scott
Laurentian University
Dan Scott wrote:
No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't
use PHP just to commend us for oh so good process. Process is important,
but it's a tool, not the goal.
Actually, I believe the latest Gallup Poll sponsored by CNN put
that number at 97.3%. ;-PBesides, as I read the message you quoted, my understand was thatPierre was inferring that it's more important for the community to
have standardized guidelines for contributions, rather than bend to
the whim of one party: in this case, IBM.Ok, Kreskin - assuming you're as out of the loop as most of the rest
of us, if this is purely an IBM thing, why are MySQL AB employees
signing up for this (see CVS account request from Jay Pipes)? MySQL
AB has its own CLA for contributions to the MySQL code base:
http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Contributor_License_Agreement. Maybe
they're the ones pushing for a CLA this time around.
No, MySQL is not pushing for CLAs to be used for PHP core components.
MySQL is the owner of the MySQL code base. That is why we require our
contributors to sign CLAs (Contributor License Agreements); otherwise,
we would not be in the position to offer our server in the same form
dually licensed both under the GPL and under commercial licenses. We
have always developed MySQL with this central control, and our ecosystem
is aware of it.
With PHP, the situation is different. The foundation of PHP was laid by
Rasmus Lerdorf together with a large group of independent developers,
and the central parts of PHP underly a different license and copyright
regime from MySQL.
Given this different licensing background, we understand that core PHP
developers don't favour CLAs. They grew PHP without CLAs and without one
single, commercial copyright holder. And they see no milestone event
absolutely requiring CLAs at this point.
At the same time, we do understand that from the point of those who
advocate CLAs, CLAs are the default way for achieving clarity on IP
ownership. That said, from our perspective, there is no compelling need
for substantial change from status quo.
-Jay
[snip]
With PHP, the situation is different. The foundation of PHP was laid by
Rasmus Lerdorf together with a large group of independent developers,
and the central parts of PHP underly a different license and copyright
regime from MySQL.
On a side note, did anyone ever say "thank you" to Rasmus, Zeev,
or Andi? I jumped on with PHP after finding it by accident back in
1997, and have never regretted it for a moment. It's so much less
stressful - and allows me to retain more hair - than Perl. You guys
saved my ass a bunch of times without even knowing me!
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled debate thread.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for <some company>'s products.No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process we
have, they care about how well PHP works for them.
This is irrelevant, because the users where not in question here. And
they only don't care because they have no idea how this stuff is
going to affect a big part of the contributers to PHP.
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for <some company>'s products.No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best
process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't
use PHP just to commend us for oh so good process. Process is important,
but it's a tool, not the goal.
Right, for the users the process isn't important, they only care about
the license and the result hat comes out.
But still it affects the developers which haven't been consulted either,
yet. And it looks like some people (who ever it is in detail) seem to
try to put stuff with different rules in CVS without discussing it -
which is against the openness of the PHP project as I know it.
johannes
Having a clear and transparent contribution process is much more
important to my eyes than good support for <some company>'s products.No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process
we have, they care about how well PHP works for them.
We don't talk about PHP users here but developers and contributors. If
PHP never had contributors (no matter the form) it would never be
where it is now.
If we had best
process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't
use PHP just to commend us for oh so good process. Process is important,
but it's a tool, not the goal.
Asking prior to acting unilaterally is part of a process. Starting to
push CLA in the core of PHP without even asking is something I can't
understand.
--Pierre
All will be revealed soon.
Just wondering what sort of timeframe you mean with "soon"... any idea?
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org
All will be revealed soon.
Just wondering what sort of timeframe you mean with "soon"... any idea?
We're atleast another week futher along without any news. I find this
getting more and more disgusting. What is the plan?
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org
Derick Rethans wrote:
What is the plan?
Assuming there is a plan.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
All will be revealed soon.
Just wondering what sort of timeframe you mean with "soon"... any idea?
We're atleast another week futher along without any news. I find this
getting more and more disgusting. What is the plan?
Still no news, and another three weeks...
regards,
Derick