OSI approval for PHP 3.01 license

  327010
March 3, 2020 22:13 matthew.sheahan@oracle.com (Matthew Sheahan)
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3666100437_501198273 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable My team=E2=80=99s ability to use the phpdbg utility hinges on OSI approval of its= license.=C2=A0 Language at https://www.php.net/license/ indicates that the PHP = 3.01 license is OSI approved, but OSI disagrees; https://opensource.org/lice= nses/alphabetical shows approval only of the PHP 3.0 license.=C2=A0 (The fact th= at 3.0 and 3.01 are substantively identical is no use to us at all.)=C2=A0 OSI, = for its part, indicates that per https://opensource.org/approval, only the =E2= =80=9CLicense Steward=E2=80=9D of the PHP 3.01 license has standing to request that it= be reviewed, via OSI=E2=80=99s License Review mailing list. =20 I would like to see the license review process there carried out as soon as= possible, and might suggest that the apparent inaccuracy of the claim of OS= I approval for 3.01 on php.net is a matter for concern. =20 Publicly available information does not yield any insight into who the =E2=80=9CL= icense Steward=E2=80=9D of the PHP 3.01 license might be, or how to contact any re= sponsible party at the PHP Group.=C2=A0 If anyone can direct me appropriately or= forward this message to someone who can, I would very much appreciate it.=C2=A0= Thanks! =20 --B_3666100437_501198273 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schema= s-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/20= 04/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

size:11.0pt'>My team=E2=80=99s= ability to use the phpdbg utility hinges on OSI approval of its license.=C2=A0 = Language at https://www.php.net/license/">https://www.php.net/licen= se/ indicates that the PHP 3.01 license is OSI approved, but OSI disagre= es; https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical">https://opensourc= e.org/licenses/alphabetical shows approval only of the PHP 3.0 license.=C2= =A0 (The fact that 3.0 and 3.01 are substantively identical is no use to us at= all.)=C2=A0 OSI, for its part, indicates that per https://opensource.o= rg/approval">https://opensource.org/approval, only the =E2=80=9CLicense Stewar= d=E2=80=9D of the PHP 3.01 license has standing to request that it be reviewed, vi= a OSI=E2=80=99s License Review mailing list.

size:11.0pt'> 

size:11.0pt'>I would like to see the license review p= rocess there carried out as soon as possible, and might suggest that the app= arent inaccuracy of the claim of OSI approval for 3.01 on php.net is a matte= r for concern.

 

ize:11.0pt'>Publicly available information does not yield any insight into w= ho the =E2=80=9CLicense Steward=E2=80=9D of the PHP 3.01 license might be, or how to con= tact any responsible party at the PHP Group.=C2=A0 If anyone can direct me appro= priately or forward this message to someone who can, I would very much appre= ciate it.=C2=A0 Thanks!

size:11.0pt'> 

--B_3666100437_501198273--
March 4, 2020 09:05 cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")
On 03.03.2020 at 23:13, Matthew Sheahan wrote:

> My team’s ability to use the phpdbg utility hinges on OSI approval of its license.  Language at https://www.php.net/license/ indicates that the PHP 3.01 license is OSI approved, but OSI disagrees; https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical shows approval only of the PHP 3.0 license.  (The fact that 3.0 and 3.01 are substantively identical is no use to us at all.)  OSI, for its part, indicates that per https://opensource.org/approval, only the “License Steward” of the PHP 3.01 license has standing to request that it be reviewed, via OSI’s License Review mailing list. > > > > I would like to see the license review process there carried out as soon as possible, and might suggest that the apparent inaccuracy of the claim of OSI approval for 3.01 on php.net is a matter for concern. > > > > Publicly available information does not yield any insight into who the “License Steward” of the PHP 3.01 license might be, or how to contact any responsible party at the PHP Group.  If anyone can direct me appropriately or forward this message to someone who can, I would very much appreciate it.  Thanks! > > > >
  108840
March 4, 2020 09:33 andreas@heigl.org (Andreas Heigl)
--sDxRSVoehOwQOm2G9f098tEocsmY8lppr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey All.

Am 04.03.20 um 10:05 schrieb Christoph M. Becker:
> On 03.03.2020 at 23:13, Matthew Sheahan wrote: >=20 >> My team=E2=80=99s ability to use the phpdbg utility hinges on OSI appr= oval of its license.=C2=A0 Language at https://www.php.net/license/ indic=
ates that the PHP 3.01 license is OSI approved, but OSI disagrees; https:= //opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical shows approval only of the PHP 3.0= license.=C2=A0 (The fact that 3.0 and 3.01 are substantively identical i= s no use to us at all.)=C2=A0 OSI, for its part, indicates that per https= ://opensource.org/approval, only the =E2=80=9CLicense Steward=E2=80=9D of= the PHP 3.01 license has standing to request that it be reviewed, via OS= I=E2=80=99s License Review mailing list.
>> >> >> >> I would like to see the license review process there carried out as so= on as possible, and might suggest that the apparent inaccuracy of the cla=
im of OSI approval for 3.01 on php.net is a matter for concern.
>> >> >> >> Publicly available information does not yield any insight into who the= =E2=80=9CLicense Steward=E2=80=9D of the PHP 3.01 license might be, or h=
ow to contact any responsible party at the PHP Group.=C2=A0 If anyone can= direct me appropriately or forward this message to someone who can, I wo= uld very much appreciate it.=C2=A0 Thanks!
>>
Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least according to https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/56567d31b331d3ab7814b36867579116eb1= 4da86#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95a) and I couldn't find that commit on svn.php.net any more to have more information on it... Insight would be highly appreciated ;-) Cheers Andreas --=20 ,,, (o o) +---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+ | Andreas Heigl | | mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50=C2=B022'59.5" E 08=C2=B0= 23'58" | | http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | http://hei.gl/root-ca | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ --sDxRSVoehOwQOm2G9f098tEocsmY8lppr--
  108843
March 4, 2020 17:26 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in > the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least
Probably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean many things). Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are the same. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  108846
March 4, 2020 17:51 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:26, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > >> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in >> the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least > > Probably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean > many things). > > Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who > would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last > time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to > OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are > the same. > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalyshev@gmail.com
I’m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up a conversation there, unless there are objections? Cheers, Ben
  108847
March 4, 2020 17:59 cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")
On 04.03.2020 at 18:51, Ben Ramsey wrote:

>> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:26, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in >>> the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least >> >> Probably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean >> many things). >> >> Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who >> would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last >> time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to >> OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are >> the same. > > I’m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up a conversation there, unless there are objections?
On the contrary – that would be very much appreciated! Thanks, Christoph
  108848
March 4, 2020 17:59 derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Ben Ramsey wrote:

> > On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:26, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrot= e:
> >=20 > > Hi! > >=20 > >> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in > >> the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least > >=20 > > Probably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mea= n
> > many things). > >=20 > > Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who > > would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the las= t
> > time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to > > OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are > > the same. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up = a=20
> conversation there, unless there are objections?
Please do. I ran into this the other day when I was rewriting the README=20 for Xdebug too:=20 https://github.com/xdebug/xdebug/commit/c4371d9d18957965a590daee13bca82ff52= 05324#diff-88b99bb28683bd5b7e3a204826ead112R92-R96 cheers, Derick --=20 PHP 7.4 Release Manager Host of PHP Internals News: https://phpinternals.news Like Xdebug? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
  108869
March 5, 2020 14:13 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:59, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Ben Ramsey wrote: > >>>> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:26, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>>> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in >>>> the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least >>> >>> Probably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean >>> many things). >>> >>> Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who >>> would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last >>> time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to >>> OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are >>> the same. >> >> I’m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up a >> conversation there, unless there are objections? > > Please do. I ran into this the other day when I was rewriting the README > for Xdebug too: > https://github.com/xdebug/xdebug/commit/c4371d9d18957965a590daee13bca82ff5205324#diff-88b99bb28683bd5b7e3a204826ead112R92-R96 >
I’ve submitted a formal request for “legacy approval” to the OSI license-review list, according to their policies. http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html Cheers, Ben
  108874
March 5, 2020 16:46 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> I’ve submitted a formal request for “legacy approval” to the OSI license-review list, according to their policies. > > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html
Here's a question from the OSI list that I cannot answer on my own:
>> 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. Cheers, Ben
  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
  108888
March 7, 2020 12:20 cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")
On 05.03.2020 at 17:46, Ben Ramsey wrote:

>> I’ve submitted a formal request for “legacy approval” to the OSI license-review list, according to their policies. >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html > > > Here's a question from the OSI list that I cannot answer on my own: > > >>> 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.
Could some member(s) of the PHP Group please comment on this. Thanks, Christoph
  108890
March 7, 2020 18:09 andreas@heigl.org (Andreas Heigl)
--FrZnh7PRWu5qs4xUOeVzj5xXk61EXU1zg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey all

Am 07.03.20 um 13:20 schrieb Christoph M. Becker:
> On 05.03.2020 at 17:46, Ben Ramsey wrote: >=20 >>> I=E2=80=99ve submitted a formal request for =E2=80=9Clegacy approval=E2= =80=9D to the OSI license-review list, according to their policies.
>> >> >> Here's a question from the OSI list that I cannot answer on my own: >> >> >>>> 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 involunta=
rily deprecated?
>> >> >> The =E2=80=9Csteward=E2=80=9D is the PHP Group. I know that Rasmus, Ze= ev, and Sascha are still active on this list, but I don=E2=80=99t know wh=
at the protocol is for making this decision. Would this need a simple RFC= for the internals community to vote on? If that=E2=80=99s the route, I=E2= =80=99m happy to put together a draft.
>=20 > Could some member(s) of the PHP Group please comment on this.
Would this be a good point in time to to question the current state of the PHP-Group as defined in https://www.php.net/credits.php? If the PHP-Group as a loose connection of veterans (used in the best sense here) is responsible for decisions like the one at hand here we might have to think about how that group is put together. Especially when of the ten people in the group only 3 seem to be still active. It looks like a bad idea to wait until no one is active any more and we need response from that group... Please note that this is not about breaking down the group or questioning the responsibilities (even though those as well seem to be rather loosely defined). This is merely about whether there should be some fresh blood in the group to reduce the bus-factor. Cheers Andreas --=20 ,,, (o o) +---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+ | Andreas Heigl | | mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50=C2=B022'59.5" E 08=C2=B0= 23'58" | | http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | http://hei.gl/root-ca | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ --FrZnh7PRWu5qs4xUOeVzj5xXk61EXU1zg--
  108891
March 7, 2020 18:48 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 7, 2020, at 12:09, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org> wrote: > > Hey all > > Am 07.03.20 um 13:20 schrieb Christoph M. Becker: >> On 05.03.2020 at 17:46, Ben Ramsey wrote: >> >>>> I’ve submitted a formal request for “legacy approval” to the OSI license-review list, according to their policies. >>>> >>>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html >>> >>> >>> Here's a question from the OSI list that I cannot answer on my own: >>> >>> >>>>> 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. >> >> Could some member(s) of the PHP Group please comment on this. > > Would this be a good point in time to to question the current state of > the PHP-Group as defined in https://www.php.net/credits.php? > > If the PHP-Group as a loose connection of veterans (used in the best > sense here) is responsible for decisions like the one at hand here we > might have to think about how that group is put together. Especially > when of the ten people in the group only 3 seem to be still active. > > It looks like a bad idea to wait until no one is active any more and we > need response from that group... > > Please note that this is not about breaking down the group or > questioning the responsibilities (even though those as well seem to be > rather loosely defined). This is merely about whether there should be > some fresh blood in the group to reduce the bus-factor.
IMO, the Group is the copyright holder of the PHP source code, in much the same way I’m the copyright holder of the source code for my open source libraries. If I stop working on my libraries and others take over, that doesn’t change the original copyright holder, and folks don’t need me to make decisions about the code. That said, it’s only when we want to make changes to the copyright itself, or if there are challenges to the copyright and the trademark (in the loose sense of the term) “PHP,” that the PHP Group as an entity needs to get involved. I say all this to say this: I don’t think changes need to be made to the PHP Group, whether for fresh blood or the bus-factor, unless we think of the Group as more than the copyright holder. Since this discussion comes from the need to make a decision about immaterial changes to the PHP License files on the website, I don’t think we necessarily need anyone from the Group to weigh-in here. However, in terms of the “steward” of the license, the OSI views the PHP Group as the steward, since that is what the License itself says, but they’re not calling for any changes to the license. Rather, they’re just assessing it, since it was an oversight that version 3.01 of the License was never submitted for OSI approval 14 years ago. Cheers, Ben
  110096
May 8, 2020 22:08 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 5, 2020, at 08:13, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:59, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Ben Ramsey wrote: >> >>>> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:26, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>>> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done in >>>>> the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at least >>>> >>>> Probably for more clear wording (since outside of context "PHP" can mean >>>> many things). >>>> >>>> Since 3.0 and 3.01 are essentially the same license, I'm not sure who >>>> would bother to go through the bureaucracy, not sure who did it the last >>>> time (or whether anybody did that at all). Maybe worth reaching out to >>>> OSI folks and asking them to update their list, since 3.0 and 3.01 are >>>> the same. >>> >>> I’m on the OSI license-discuss mailing list and happy to open up a >>> conversation there, unless there are objections? >> >> Please do. I ran into this the other day when I was rewriting the README >> for Xdebug too: >> https://github.com/xdebug/xdebug/commit/c4371d9d18957965a590daee13bca82ff5205324#diff-88b99bb28683bd5b7e3a204826ead112R92-R96 >> > > > I’ve submitted a formal request for “legacy approval” to the OSI license-review list, according to their policies. > > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html
I’m following up with an update on this… The standard procedure for the OSI is a 60-day review period, after which they make a recommendation to the board and then take action at the next board meeting. We have reached the end of that 60-day period, and the license committee chair has submitted a recommendation for approval to the board. It’ll be voted on at the next board meeting, which I think is either today or sometime soon after today. Here’s the official recommendation:
> - License: The PHP License, version 3.01 (Exhibit A) > - Submitted: 4 March 2020, > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html > - Decision date: due no later than the first Board meeting > after 3 May 2020 > > License Review Committee Recommendation: > > _Resolved that it is the opinion of the OSI that the The PHP > License, version 3.01 be approved as an Open Source Initiative > Approved License in the Non-Reusable Licenses category of > licenses. The OSI-Approved PHP License version 3.00 shall be > moved to the “superseded” category of licenses._
The full recommendation email is available here: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-May/004818.html I’ll let the list know when the approval is final. Cheers, Ben Cheers, Ben
  110169
May 15, 2020 15:48 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On May 8, 2020, at 17:08, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 5, 2020, at 08:13, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: >> >> >> I’ve submitted a formal request for “legacy approval” to the OSI license-review list, according to their policies. >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html > > > I’m following up with an update on this… > > The standard procedure for the OSI is a 60-day review period, after which they make a recommendation to the board and then take action at the next board meeting. > > We have reached the end of that 60-day period, and the license committee chair has submitted a recommendation for approval to the board. It’ll be voted on at the next board meeting, which I think is either today or sometime soon after today. > > Here’s the official recommendation: > >> - License: The PHP License, version 3.01 (Exhibit A) >> - Submitted: 4 March 2020, >> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html >> - Decision date: due no later than the first Board meeting >> after 3 May 2020 >> >> License Review Committee Recommendation: >> >> _Resolved that it is the opinion of the OSI that the The PHP >> License, version 3.01 be approved as an Open Source Initiative >> Approved License in the Non-Reusable Licenses category of >> licenses. The OSI-Approved PHP License version 3.00 shall be >> moved to the “superseded” category of licenses._ > > The full recommendation email is available here: > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-May/004818.html > > I’ll let the list know when the approval is final.
The approval is final! The PHP License 3.01 is an OSI-approved license!
> At its Board meeting on May 13, 2020, the Board of the OSI passed the > motion that The PHP License, version 3.01 be approved as an Open > Source Initiative Approved License in the Non-Reusable Licenses > category of licenses and moving the OSI-Approved PHP License version > 3.00 to the “superseded” category of licenses.
Would someone mind responding to the original poster on the general mailing list to let them know that their legal department can rest assured that the PHP license is OSI-approved. The OSI website might not be up-to-date yet, so you can point them to the following mailing list link as evidence of OSI approval: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-May/004841.html Cheers, Ben
  110171
May 15, 2020 20:55 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> Would someone mind responding to the original poster on the general > mailing list to let them know that their legal department can rest > assured that the PHP license is OSI-approved. > > The OSI website might not be up-to-date yet, so you can point them to > the following mailing list link as evidence of OSI approval: > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-May/004841.html
Thanks for following up with this. Bureaucracy is not fun, but sometimes needs to be taken care of. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  108948
March 10, 2020 14:11 johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)
On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 10:33 +0100, Andreas Heigl wrote:
> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done > in > the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at > least > according to > https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/56567d31b331d3ab7814b36867579116eb14da86#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95a
> ) > and I couldn't find that commit on svn.php.net any more to have more > information on it... > > Insight would be highly appreciated ;-) >
My memory could fail me, but I believe there were debates coming from Debian community around especially PECL extensions being Licensed under PHP Licens 3.0 and the wording being sub-optimal. The new wording (and website link) should make it clear that PECL (and PEAR) is "PHP Software" while not being "PHP". See this thread: https://news-web.php.net/php.pecl.dev/11927 johannes
  108949
March 10, 2020 14:33 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On Mar 10, 2020, at 09:11, Johannes Schlüter <johannes@schlueters.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 10:33 +0100, Andreas Heigl wrote: >> Does anyone here remember why the changes to the license where done >> in >> the first place? The commit was done on the 1st of Jan. 2006 (at >> least >> according to >> > https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/56567d31b331d3ab7814b36867579116eb14da86#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95a >> ) >> and I couldn't find that commit on svn.php.net any more to have more >> information on it... >> >> Insight would be highly appreciated ;-) >> > > > My memory could fail me, but I believe there were debates coming from > Debian community around especially PECL extensions being Licensed under > PHP Licens 3.0 and the wording being sub-optimal. The new wording (and > website link) should make it clear that PECL (and PEAR) is "PHP > Software" while not being "PHP". > > See this thread: https://news-web.php.net/php.pecl.dev/11927
Here’s a good post related to the Debian discussion: https://lwn.net/Articles/604630/ Cheers, Ben