Re: [PHP-DEV] OSI approval for PHP 3.01 license

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  108875
March 5, 2020 21:28 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

>>> If this version is approved, will the steward voluntarily deprecate version 3.0, and if not, and if 3.01 is approved, should 3.0 be involuntarily deprecated? > > > The “steward” is the PHP Group. I know that Rasmus, Zeev, and Sascha are still active on this list, but I don’t know what the protocol is for making this decision. Would this need a simple RFC for the internals community to vote on? If that’s the route, I’m happy to put together a draft.
I think it is already effectively "deprecated", as all current PHP versions use 3.01. There was no formal announcement about it, I think, but since this is the license that is used only for PHP engine and not much else (and HHVM, which also uses 3.01) there wasn't much point about explicitly stating it, but if it's necessary, I guess it'd make sense to "deprecate" it, whatever that means. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  108876
March 5, 2020 21:36 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 5, 2020, at 15:28, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > >>>> If this version is approved, will the steward voluntarily deprecate version 3.0, and if not, and if 3.01 is approved, should 3.0 be involuntarily deprecated? >> >> >> The “steward” is the PHP Group. I know that Rasmus, Zeev, and Sascha are still active on this list, but I don’t know what the protocol is for making this decision. Would this need a simple RFC for the internals community to vote on? If that’s the route, I’m happy to put together a draft. > > I think it is already effectively "deprecated", as all current PHP > versions use 3.01. There was no formal announcement about it, I think, > but since this is the license that is used only for PHP engine and not > much else (and HHVM, which also uses 3.01) there wasn't much point about > explicitly stating it, but if it's necessary, I guess it'd make sense to > "deprecate" it, whatever that means.
IMO, this is just a formality. Since 3.01 has been in use for 14 years and PHP hasn’t used it since 2006, it is, as you say, effectively deprecated. We do have a number of PECL extensions not “owned” by the PHP Group that have applied the 3.01 license. In fact, PECL advocates for this here: https://pecl.php.net/account-request.php
> We strongly encourage contributors to choose the PHP License 3.01 for their extensions
I also note at least one extension that continues to use the 3.0 license, and in fact, it appears they reverted from 3.01 to 3.0 in 2012 (I’m not sure why): https://github.com/websupport-sk/pecl-memcache/blob/NON_BLOCKING_IO_php7/LICENSE There is some concern at the OSI about these clauses, when the license is applied to any projects not owned by the PHP Group. I’ll keep everyone here posted and will let you know if these become more than passing concerns. 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact group@php.net. 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" Cheers, Ben
  108877
March 5, 2020 22:31 cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")
On 05.03.2020 at 22:36, Ben Ramsey wrote:

> There is some concern at the OSI about these clauses, when the license is applied to any projects not owned by the PHP Group. I’ll keep everyone here posted and will let you know if these become more than passing concerns. > > > 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products > derived from this software without prior written permission. For > written permission, please contact group@php.net. > > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor > may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission > from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in > conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling > it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
These clauses are identical to those in version 3.0[1], which apparently has been approved by OSI. -- Christoph M. Becker
  108881
March 6, 2020 05:42 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 5, 2020, at 16:31, Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 05.03.2020 at 22:36, Ben Ramsey wrote: > >> There is some concern at the OSI about these clauses, when the license is applied to any projects not owned by the PHP Group. I’ll keep everyone here posted and will let you know if these become more than passing concerns. >> >> >> 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products >> derived from this software without prior written permission. For >> written permission, please contact group@php.net. >> >> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor >> may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission >> from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in >> conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling >> it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" > > These clauses are identical to those in version 3.0[1], which apparently > has been approved by OSI.
I do not believe these clauses will be an issue for acceptance of 3.01 through the legacy approval process. We got sidetracked on a discussion about them. I’ve just opened a pull request on web-php that should help the legacy approval process. See this post: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004741.html Here is the PR: https://github.com/php/web-php/pull/318 Cheers, Ben
  108886
March 6, 2020 21:42 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 5, 2020, at 23:42, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: > > I’ve just opened a pull request on web-php that should help the legacy approval process. See this post: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004741.html > > Here is the PR: https://github.com/php/web-php/pull/318
Are there any thoughts or concerns regarding these changes? I don’t have web-php karma, so I can’t merge the changes myself, and even if I did, I’d want to hear from others first. Or maybe no feedback means no one has any strong feelings or problems with these changes? Cheers, Ben
  108951
March 10, 2020 14:51 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 6, 2020, at 15:42, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 5, 2020, at 23:42, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: >> >> I’ve just opened a pull request on web-php that should help the legacy approval process. See this post: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004741.html >> >> Here is the PR: https://github.com/php/web-php/pull/318 > > > Are there any thoughts or concerns regarding these changes? I don’t have web-php karma, so I can’t merge the changes myself, and even if I did, I’d want to hear from others first. > > Or maybe no feedback means no one has any strong feelings or problems with these changes?
Bump. Anyone? If there are no objections, can someone go ahead and merge this? Thanks! Cheers, Ben
  108966
March 11, 2020 04:56 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> Bump. Anyone? > > If there are no objections, can someone go ahead and merge this?
I merged it. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  108978
March 11, 2020 13:27 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 10, 2020, at 23:56, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > >> Bump. Anyone? >> >> If there are no objections, can someone go ahead and merge this? > > I merged it.
Thanks, Stas! Cheers, Ben