![PHP PHP](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/php_64.png)
![Programming Programming](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/programming_64.png)
![GNU is Not Unix GNU is Not Unix](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/gnu_64.png)
PHP Not Moving To The GPL 629
darthcamaro writes "In an article on InternetNews.com, PHP co-founder Andi Gutmans takes a small shot at RMS (and the FSF), labelling them as fanatics and as not being representative of PHP's user base. 'Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less. "They are just happy that it's a PHP license and they can do whatever they want with it and can ship it with their commercial products," he said.' The comments were made in the context of the recent MySQL LGPL to GPL licesing problem which is what the article is really about. '"We definitely don't see eye to eye on the issue of licensing. He [Richard Stallman] doesn't like our licensing and we know that," Gutmans said. "We're aware of each other, but the PHP project has no intention of moving to some sort of GPL license."'"
How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say that I don't see one either.
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! That's GNU/Freedom to you, sir!
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems this free code is restricting my ability to use PHP, and GPL pundits are trying to blame PHP for it.
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Newsflash: it doesn't matter how many people agree with Stallman, it in no way invalidates another persons opinion on what Free is and is not ( and vice versa ). Debian, the OSI and Stallman don't represent me, and that's fine.
A non-BSD SF person who believes in BSD style freedoms.
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:3, Insightful)
. . . debian (sic) is a democracy.
Who said democracy is freedom? There are those who claim that I live in a democracy, but am I free to take all the fruit of my earnings and dispose of it as I see fit? No, my democracy is a kleptocracy. They take their share from me to distribute amongst my fellow Americans, then give me the remainder and tell me to say thank you. I'd rather live in an autocracy where an aquatic ceremony bestows supreme rule to one man. At least then I'd know where I stood. No, I am not
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Funny)
Get a job where they don't pay you in fruit.
Re:GPL is free (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a lot more people are comfortable backing ESR than the rather-more-radical RMS.
So ESR's fans keep hammering on Sun.
In the case of Java, I think that it's even less of an issue than PHP, actually. Java was originally designed with the idea of many different VMs existing.
Why must I be a fan of anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should I really care what ESR or RMS thinks about the software I choose to use? I mean all this talk about freedom shouldn't I
Fandom is not required, but understanding helps. (Score:5, Informative)
Because they are saying very different things about software [gnu.org] and, as a result, they reach different conclusions on some of the most interesting debates about software and how people should be treated.
Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined. Consider web browsers, for instance: if we only had 3 browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape) choice would be satisfied. We would not have software freedom, however, because none of those browsers are free software. They are all proprietary programs. Choice is not bad to have but it is not the heart of either the free software or open source philosophies and choice alone will not bring you the ability to share and modify software.
Nobody is challenging these powers (certainly not any free software or open source advocate). But there are significant differences between the two licenses you mention, so it is important to help people make informed decisions.
Re:Fandom is not required, but understanding helps (Score:3, Interesting)
"Because they are saying very different things about software and, as a result, they reach different conclusions on some of the most interesting debates about software and how people should be treated."
Ahh but you see here is the rub... Do they know more than I do? Why should I hang on every word they write. Why should I not trust in my own judgement and not follow like a drone. I have read a lot of what they both have to say. Frankly I find ESR to be a selfrightous biggot. Yes I came to that opinon based
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:4, Informative)
Why GPL compatible is good: (Score:5, Interesting)
Every now and again, someone who doesn't know the history, repeats it's mistakes.
Stallman asks people to use the GPL, but he doesn't take issue with people using other compatible licenses. He asks people to move to a compatible license - not necessarily the GPL - if their current license is incompatible. He's seen the problem, he's seen the solution, he tries to show people the two.
Another on-topic article is David Wheelers "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else." [dwheeler.com]
Re:Why GPL compatible is good: (Score:3, Funny)
And he's so polite about it, I don't understand why people don't just do what he says! <sarcasm>
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Insightful)
What? How does "as in speech" make your point here? I don't even see how it's related. Yes, I know this is a GPL mantra...I even understand it, but in your example I don't see the connection.
With freedom, as we all know, comes responsibility.
Where do you get that? I don't follow the logical leap here. I know it's a common thing to say but how does it apply to your argument?
The PHP licence is only "more free" than the GPL if you use a different meaning of "free" than that which the GPL is based on.
This sounds like double-talk to me. I understand the rationale behind the GPL. I may go so far as to say that I agree with its intent in some cases, but it's a bit disingenuous to try to convince someone that a more restrictive license is somehow more "free".
Making statements like this just confuses people even further, so please don't do it.
It's confusing because of the issues mentioned in my above comments.
Freedom and power. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are restrictions on both -- in the US, freedom of speech is not an absolute. Under the GNU GPL, your freedom to share and modify comes with a proviso that you cannot deny recipients of distributed derivatives or verbatim copies the freedoms to share and modify the program.
Not at all. The FSF uses driving a car to help understand why restricting some freedoms are necessary to preserve others; I'll attempt to paraphrase it briefly: we cannot have all possible freedoms because some conflict. So we make choices and give up some freedoms to keep other freedoms. For instance, we are not allowed to drive anywhere we want at any speed we want. We are not allowed to drive on the sidewalks and we are not allowed to disobey the speed limit. Our freedom to do these things is curtailed because other freedoms are deemed more valuable -- the freedom to walk down the street in safety. The GNU project is about spreading software freedom to more people, so this requires a copyright license which doesn't allow anyone to strip away the freedoms of free software. Hence the GNU GPL (the license under which a lot of the GNU project's programs are distributed) has a strong copyleft.
The FSF argues, quite convincingly, that the ability to restrict what others can do with computer programs is a power not a freedom [gnu.org] because "Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.".
I don't think any free software advocate would object to the use of the new BSD license. Such programs are a gift to everyone, and therein lies the rub. Free software advocates warn against using non-copyleft free software licenses (such as the new BSD license) under most circumstances because doing so has some noteworthy practical problems (like competing against a derivative of one's own code) and because it means treating businesses like charities.
Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedom) (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL is free as in free speech, meaning "freedom". With freedom, as we all know, comes responsibility.
PHP/MIT/BSD et al licences are free as in free time, meaning "no (or few) strings attached".
Your definition of "freedom" is self serving and wrong. Given two licenses the one with the fewer strings is the more free, i.e. GPL is the less free of the two.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
GPL loses here, I am restrained from using it in non-open projects.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
n/a
3. a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
GPL loses here, it is certainly politically biased. You may like this bias but that is a different topic.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
GPL looses here, its conditions can be unpleasant for some commercial users. Even onerous is some cases. Consider GPL'd software that was taxpayer funded. I realize it is popular mythology that corporations pay no taxes but after having been around a number of small companies and small business owners I know that this particular myth is incorrect.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
GPL loses here as well, quite obviously.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
n/a
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
n/a
8. a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
An even more obvious loss by GPL compared to PHP/BSD.
b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
n/a
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: "the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form" (John W. Aldridge).
Again GPL loses, it exercises more control.
To emphasize I have nothing against the GPL or people that choose to release their work under the GPL. That is certainly their right. My only argument is against the notion that the GPL embodies freedom.
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I want a license that will allow people to view and modify the code for use in their own projects, submit bugfixes back to the originator and allow for greater learning by viewing past methods of problem solving / logic, without taking away the rights of the original author. As far as I know (and I could be mistaken), the GPL does
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL maximizes the collective benefit to society at large at the expense of individual liberty. This is, by definition, a socalist philosophy.
BSD maximizes individual liberty at the potential expense of society as a whole. This is, by definition, a libertarian philosophy.
Compelling another to a course of action against their will is the antithesis of freedom. You can't force other people to be socially responsible. Freedom includes the right to be an asshole.
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo (Score:5, Insightful)
Except no one is forced to use GPL software. If you don't like it, use something else.
The GPL is quite compatible with capitalism: The author retains copyright, but allows others to redistribute derivative works, provided the source for the derivative work is available under the same terms. Quid pro quo.
Hmmm, wouldn't forcing people to be socially responsible make you an asshole? QED. Anyway, nothing forces you to accept the GPL, since you can choose to not create derivative works.
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL maximizes the collective benefit to society at large at the expense of individual liberty. This is, by definition, a socalist philosophy.
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo (Score:3, Insightful)
You lost me here.
If I write some software and provide it to society under a BSD-style license, and then some e-e-e-vil corporation uses my software into their commercial product, how is this a cost to society as a whole?
One may argue that the BSD license allows Evil, Inc. to use the software in question without the attendant benefit of reciprocated development. The false assumption here is that the benefit would be realiz
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo (Score:4, Insightful)
Take two imaginary places: the US as governed by the constitution, and Anarchyland. (The fact that I refer to the US as governed by the constitution as an imaginary place can by interperted as you like.)
In the US, there are many laws that restrict what you can do: you can't kill people, and you cant buy a television station and broadcast 24/7 that your neighbor picks his nose (unless you neighbor is a public figure, of course). By the techincal definition you seem to be using, every one of these laws takes away your freedom, thus making you less free. In that technical sense, I agree.
In Anarchyland, you can do whatever you want. There are absolutely no laws against anything. You can kill your neighbor if he picks his nose in public. According to your technical definition, Anarchyland has the absolute maximum freedom that could ever be achieved in a society.
Now, look at the end result. In Anarchyland, nobody can leave their house, because they are afraid of being killed. It is incredibly unsafe to drive on the highway, and the end result is that people can hardly do anything. In contrast, the US allows people to basically do what they want, when they want, provided they dont want to kill people. I would call this freedom.
To avoid pissing off the libertarians, I should specify that the analysis doesn't have to work out the way I described it. Perhaps Anarchyland actually provides more freedom in the end. My point is that simply looking at the statues themselves is not enough to determine the freedom they provide or protect. It is necessary to analyze the end result and determine how it affects freedom overall. Simply stating that the GPL has more restrictions is like stating that the US has stricter laws against murder, so people in the US are less free than people in Iraq.
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently the citizens in BSDland are actually asking that you commit violence against them (create closed source commercial products). Those masochists!! And GPLland is operating under the mistaken belief that source code is a God-given right.
Um, BSD is nothing like anarchy, and the GPL is nothing like western democracy. Try agin.
Lest you get distracted again, this is the statement you're trying
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:3, Informative)
Please point out where I said that. I said it was a barrier.
This whole thing started because the latest MySQL client library was released under the GPL. This makes it illegal to distribute binaries of PHP with the new MySQL client compiled in. LOTS of people use PHP with MySQL. They may no longer be able to unless they compile from source.
Aside: In this case, it's arguably not PHP's fault, but rather MySQL's for changing the licence
PHP seems to be GPL compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PHP seems to be GPL compatible (Score:3, Funny)
Re:PHP seems to be GPL compatible (Score:2)
Re:PHP seems to be GPL compatible (Score:4, Informative)
What we have here is a spat between the Zend and MySQL people. RMS as usual fanned the flames just by having a public opinion. I really think the FSF would do better with people like Moglen and Lessig as the public faces. The message is the same but they don't seem to be as accomplished at throwing the dirty-commie-hippy brain shutoff switches.
General Public License License (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, I need to go to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number
Gnu GPL License (Score:5, Funny)
Re:General Public License License (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IITYWTMWYBMAD? (Score:5, Insightful)
ATM = Automatic Teller Machine
PIN = Personal Identification Number
so saying "ATM machine to type in my PIN number" is incorrect repetition just like "GPL licence" (GNU Public Licence licence)
umm.. that article is about MySQL (Score:5, Informative)
php has it's license info here:
http://www.php.net/license/
Re:umm.. that article is about MySQL (Score:3, Informative)
From March 12th.
and of course slashdot in some stupid "poop in the eye" moment screwed the story completely up because a cluebie posted the article.
Oh yea? (Score:5, Funny)
No to GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll take the BSD license anytime. Code migrates from BSD to Linux (but not Linux to BSD) because of GPL.
Re:No to GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why they say it's more free. Oh wait...
Re:No to GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that depends what you mean by "free". Freedom of the code to move around wherever? Freedom of businesses to use it with no compensation in any form? Freedom to not worry that someone will misapropriate your and the community's hard work for his/her profit while giving nothing back? Define which "freedom" do you mean, because there are certainly more then one.
Re:No to GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The code is not a person, it doesn't have rights. Whether it's a BSD license or a GPL license you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Except for GPL of course. Then you cannot do whatever you want.
If I take a piece of BSD code and lock it down in my proprietary app, I don't steal anything, I don't remove any rights. The code is still BSD. What I myself add into the BSD piece, I decide to make it non-bsd. That is my freedom.
If you tell me I have to give back, you put a restriction on my freedom. Hence this is not freedom anymore.
Freedom of businesses to use it
Well, yes. Whether they decide to give back stuff or not is another problem. It's their choice, and in that regard they are free to make what they want. That's a proper use of the term freedom.
Freedom to not worry
Let's not abuse the word freedom. It is not a word you can put at the beginning of any sentence. I assume you mean "Peace of mind" by these words, and that has nothing to do with freedom.
misapropriate your and the community's hard work for his/her profit while giving nothing back
If you want to control what happens to your code, you put restrictions to it. That removes freedom. Period. Get over it.
Define which "freedom" do you mean, because there are certainly more then one
Well, freedom is being free. In other words, having no restrictions. GPL is having restrictions. Heck! Even BSD has some restrictions: You should retain the header with the copyright notice. That's a restiction, albeit obviously not too bad.
Freedom is not necessarily good though. A country governed by freedom would be anarchy. And that's obviously not good.
What you are trying to describe by "Freedom" is some kind of idea of "non-evil lock-down". And I agree with that, and I think it's nice and "non-evil". But it is not freedom.
Re:No to GPL (Score:3)
There is no such thing. What you mean is absolute freedom which is an abstract, unattainable, philosophical concept. In practical terms there are only limited freedoms to do some specific things. They can combine to form larger freedoms but they will never be "simply" a universal freedom.
What you have done, is to list your freedoms (or your definitions someone's else's) and claimed that my definitions are the ignorant and uninformed ones as be
Re:No to GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
At the risk of being modded down (and I surely will be) FUCK you. I will not get over it. I don't want to control code that I license under the GPL - I want to make sure NO ONE controls it. I am really tired of hearing this stupid smear. It's exactly equivalent logically to saying "if you want true freedom, you've got to let someone else be a tyrant or else you're restricting their freedom."
If you want control over your code, choose a proprietary license. If you want someone else to eventually control your code, choose BSD. If you want no one to control your code ever, choose GPL.
Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
You understand that is a form of control right?
if you want true freedom, you've got to let someone else be a tyrant or else you're restricting their freedom
Heck yes! True freedom is Anarchy! True freedom is bad! Welcome in the world! Did you just realize that? Freedom - in its absolute form - is a lack of any rules and guidelines, what did you think?
Realize that freedom is a utopia in itself. A little like,
Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Got it!
The BSD license doesn't have any restrictions. That's what [absolute] freedom is all about. No restrictions. One person that has absolute freedom could shoot you in the head. That's it! Freedom - at least in its absolute form - is screwed up. That's how it is.
Now I'm not saying "GPL is less free" means it's worse. It's probably better. But it's not "more free" tham GPL.
in BSD land the person who writes the restrictive extension makes one restriction
That's where I
Re:No to GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh...
From the BSD license:
Here are three ways in which I could misapropriate BSD code: Distribute source or binary without the notice and endorse my shit with BSD developer's name.Is that what you are asking for?
Re:No to GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
With the BSD license, closed source projects can use the code, which, in the short term, makes the BSD license more free.
With the GPL, closed source projects cannot use the code. With the BSD license, code tends to slowly drift into closed projects, as the old code becomes unnmaintained and unpatched. With the GPL, this is avoided -- once code is open source, it stays open source, and folks that fix bugs, and keep the code from being obsolete need to contribute their patches back to the open source codebase, which keeps it alive. This makes the GPL more free in the long term.
Neither is an invalid license, but they do different things.
The GPL is for people that are interested in promoting society-wide use of open-source.
The BSD license is for people that want to have a one-off license solution for a project that they've produced. I'd say that the BSD license competes with simply placing code in the public domain more than it does with the GPL.
Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm aware of that. However, the original code, potentially unmaintained, steadily depreciates in value. Try compiling a gopher server anymore (last time I tried, two years ago, I couldn't find one that built out-of-box on my system any more).
Tell me something, if I place some code under the BSD license and publish it on Usenet for all to see, how can a company come along later and un-open source the work I did?
They don't. They compete at an une
Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you have preferred companies develop several competing incompatible network stacks? TCP/IP won out because of the BSD license.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
But what are the realities? MySQL and PHP both used to be more free than they are now. MySQL used to have LGPL client libraries and GPL code, now the client libraries are GPL (which is so re
Then Andi missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Up to "user base", I thought Andi was doing a good thing (he takes shots at RMS' fanatism, that can't be all bad can it?).
But his implying that RMS and the FSF stand against making a living off of GPLed products totally misses the point, and makes him lose all coolness factor in my eyes. This is a common mistake that most everybody who does not understand the GPL makes: does the GPL prevent you from making money the Microsoft way? certainly. Does it prevent you from making money? certainly not (see RH, SuSE,...). Is it harder to make money off of GPL products? probably, in the traditional sense, the answer is probably in the services around them.
That Slashdotters and other hysterical Linux fans mistake the GPL for a money-grubbing-prevention license is sad but it's all too common. That somebody as prominent as Andi should make himself look like a fool by spewing the same sort of FUD, that's just wrong. I dislike RMS as much as anyone, but I'll credit the guy for saying over and over again that his aim is *not* to prevent people from making a living with software.
Its not FUD, you are spreading FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Its not FUD, you are spreading FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Its not FUD, you are spreading FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
I call FUD the way Andi implies things the GPL does not say. People who look up to Andi will get distorted impressions about the GPL. It's crap like that that makes developers and software business owners go "GPL? uuh that's baaad" without even knowing what it's about.
I don't deny anybody the right to think differently than RMS. I'm not a huge fan of RMS myself, and I know very well the GPL isn't right for everything. But there's so much misconceptions about the GPL, and I think prominent people like Andi have a duty to speak some sort of truth about it. Once people know what it allows them to do or not do, they are free to not use it, but at least the decision will be made on more than bullshit they once read or heard somewhere.
Re:Its not FUD, you are spreading FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
You include this phrase but you completely missed the point. You have a choice whether to be a service/support company or not, no-one is stopping you from selling software. They might not agree with you for doing it but they won't stop you (unless you try and breach their license but you really wouldn't have a leg to stand on).
It is quite possible to make a lot of money out of GPL software (IBM for example) but you choosing a different busine
Re:Then Andi missed the point (Score:2, Insightful)
SuSe, RedHat, novell, IBM, etc... are quite big companies so they can easilly keep up with their competition. If a local development shop tomorrow creates a great and clean open-sourced product under the GPL and offers services for that product, a month later, another local company with twice the staff will come and eat them because they have twice the number o
Re:Then Andi missed the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then Andi missed the point (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently I have been coding in the wrong language!
Please explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, can some one please paste what the PHP license is all about. Please understand that the lay-man might not easily understand legal terms, myself included.
Re:Please explain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm have you every tried to read the GPL?
Re:Please explain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the PHP license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Viral clause! Just like GPL. Score 1 for PHP, and 1 for GPL.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Another viral clause! I think it can be combined with the first though, very similar. But it means you can distribute binaries without having to distribute the source code (unlike GPL) Score: PHP 2, GPL 1.
3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior permission from the PHP Group. This does not apply to add-on libraries or tools that work in conjunction with PHP. In such a case the PHP name may be used to indicate that the product supports PHP.
Trademark restriction! The GPL *does not* have such a restriction. Score one for GPL (PHP:2 GPL:2).
4. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the license from time to time...[snip] No one other than the PHP Group has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
"You may use this version or any later version", combined with "you may not change the license" GPL has this too, one point each: (PHP:3, GPL:3).
5. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from http://www.php.net/".
Uh-oh, another requirement that the GPL doesn't have. Score one for GPL (PHP:3, GPL:4).
6. The software incorporates the Zend Engine, a product of Zend Technologies, Ltd. ("Zend"). The Zend Engine is licensed to the PHP Association (pursuant to a grant from Zend that can be found at http://www.php.net/license/ZendGrant/) for distribution to you under this license agreement, only as a part of PHP. In the event that you separate the Zend Engine (or any portion thereof) from the rest of the software, or modify the Zend Engine, or any portion thereof, your use of the separated or modified Zend Engine software shall not be governed by this license, and instead shall be governed by the license set forth at http://www.zend.com/license/ZendLicense/.
Interesting, a mutating trap-door license.. if you change the code, in some circumstances you may need to *change license* too! Ouch! Incorporating text of another license by reference! Ouch ouch! Score two for GPL. (PHP:3, GPL:6).
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, [snip]
Yup, everybody has this.
So, the license is viral, doesn't allow changing the license (but is non-copyleft because it doesn't require source code), and has restrictions that the GPL doesn't have... tell me again why this is a *better* license than the GPL?
It's funny to see so many people sticking up for this license, just to get a dig in at RMS.
Re:Please explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot the clause where the GPL forces you to release YOUR source code under the GPL if you use the GPL'd code. From your analysis above, PHP doesn't do that. And that's a bigger reason than every single one you listed.
Nice try though.
Analysis of GPL Compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Statements 1, 2, and 3 are extremely similar to the stuff you'll find in any and all BSD type licenses. They're basically straight rips from the BSD license, just reworded slightly. This is totally GPL compatible, as these are even less restrictive than the GPL is.
Statement 4 is similar to some parts of the GPL, but essentially it's just saying that they're retaining copyright and thus can change the license. As such, it's not particularly useful or informative, and I'd count it as a null factor. Especially since they cannot retroactively change a license, under any circumstances. This does not break GPL compatibility.
Statement 5 is the one that actually makes it GPL-incompatible, as the GPL states that you cannot place restrictions on the thing above and beyond the GPL itself. So if you derive something from GPL code and PHP-licensed code, it becomes essentially impossible to adhere to both licenses at once. You have to include a statement in your resulting license about this combined thing containing PHP code, while the GPL forbids you from placing that statement into the resulting combined license. Incompatible.
Statement 6 is interesting, because it states that the Zend section is separately licensed if you separate the thing from PHP or modify Zend itself. All this really states is that if you do mess with Zend, you need to rethink your licensing scheme. This may or may not be compatible with the GPL, depending on the resulting Zend license. However, it's most likely incompatible with the GPL, as it places an additional restriction on the use of the combined code that the GPL does not allow, namely that you have to relicense if you modify Zend itself.
Reconciliation:
Statement 5 can be reconciled with the GPL easily: Remove it. That's the only way to make the PHP license compatible there.
Statement 6 is harder. The upshot here is that you'd have to remove it form the resulting combined license and separate Zend from PHP entirely, not distributing it at all. This could be problematic at best.
Upshot:
Avoid using the PHP licensed code with GPL licensed code. Getting them to work together is essentially impossible. It's most likely easier to simply reinvent the wheel, on one side or the other.
Which is more "free":
Depends on your definition of free.
-The GPL places one major restriction on you, namely that the resulting code and changes you make to GPL code is also available under the GPL itself.
-The PHP license places restriction 5 on you, which frankly ain't much, and restriction 6, which is a tough one to deal with if you do anything whatsoever to the Zend engine. Restriction 6 is most definitely bad, except that the vast majority of users of PHP licensed code won't be modifying the Zend engine and so it won't apply to them. It's probably one of the requirements for using Zend, and while it blows, it's not unworkable.
Which would I use:
-If I used GPL code, I'm forced to use the GPL.
-If I used PHP code, I'm not forced to do shit except put in a small one liner or something.
-If I write my own code, I can do whatever I damn well please... And that's the important one here. I would personally not use nor emulate the PHP license, as it's really just a BSD license with some extra bits tossed in. I'd use a BSD license instead, if such was my intent (BSD basically puts it out there similar to being in the public domain, but with copyright retention, just in case). If I wanted the code to stay free forever, as in free for everybody to use and not free for anybody to steal, then I'd use the GPL.
How do open source projects change lisences? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How do open source projects change lisences? (Score:5, Informative)
The copyright to ReiserFS, for example, is completely owned by the ReiserFS dude. He can ship it under whatever license he likes. One of those licenses is the GPL. If you receive it under the GPL, then you have all the rights guaranteed to you via the GPL, so you can *only* distribute it under the GPL. Because you don't own the copyright.
Linux, on the other hand, does not require submitters to turn over their copyright on their code submissions. If Linus wanted to release Linux under the BSD license, he would need permission from every single person that has their copyrighted code in Linux. He did this intentionally, as a guarantee that it would never happen.
The FSF does require copyright on all it's code, which means that if someone sued the billy-blue jeepers out of the FSF, in theory they could acquire the assets of the FSF, and release closed-source versions of Emacs or something. The FSF, however, has a greater standing should they ever go to court to enforce the GPL for one of their projects.
Of course, the kids at the FSF are pretty sharp. They may have some method of ensuring that their code will never fall into SCO's hands or something. Dunno.
Re:The FSF's eventual failure (Score:3, Insightful)
There so much FSF code that most of it wouldn't be worth jack shit if it lost its maintainers. The only real booty would be what the usu
Re:How do open source projects change lisences? (Score:2)
Re:How do open source projects change lisences? (Score:5, Interesting)
XMB [eXtreme Message Board] - URL [xmbforum.com]
Originally began under a BSD license. Developers quit. New guy, Richard, took over and changed the license without consulting anyone to a proprietary license for 1.6. No previous developers were consulted regarding the change. New branches started from the 1.5 source, since it was BSD, but any attempts to release the code were met with legal threats from Richard and Aventure Media [aventuremedia.com]. The only notable exception is previous developers started their own forum from the 1.5 code but it went no where. No one has ever defied Aventure Media and released a competing project based off earlier code for fear of legal costs. This is a free forum -- no profit is made. No one can afford to have a legal battle over it, so they move on. (Which is why XMB is losing developers and is fading away, especially in comparison to other superior forum projects [like this [phpbb.com]].)
Changing the license is probably illegal, but Richard argued that the code was submitted to XMB as a project, and thus was property of whomever ran the project, which was now him. Is this right? Probably not. Can anyone do anything about it? Not without spending money on a product that makes no money. When a project manager screws around with things like licensing, it's best to walk away.
Great--Neither Camp Understands their Users (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it. There is a huge non-profit/amateur base of users--look no further than the numerous php projects hosted on sourceforge.
How many major for-profit php apps can you name? Yes, many commercial sites use PHP. But a ton of noncommercial sites do too.
It is somewhat sad that the PHP developers don't see "the rest of us" as a significant portion of their user base, just as it was sad to see RMS not understand that his political message surrounding free software was turning many people off.
no gpl (Score:3, Insightful)
PHP5 a turning point? (Score:2, Interesting)
read the license? (Score:5, Informative)
Idiotic article. (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's too BSD-like, then this is a completely meaningless debate. CEO dude is right, PHP's users won't care. If it's too Sun-like, then there's something to talk about.
Oh. Here's what RMS says [fsf.org]: That's still vague. What's the hiccup? It looks like RMS has no ideological problem with this license. Is there a new, worse license?
Re:Idiotic article. (Score:3, Informative)
It is a non-copyleft free software license (okay) which is incompatible with the GNU GPL (bad).
That is, while there are non-copyleft free software licenses which are compatible with the GNU GPL (e.g., new BSD), this is not one of them. It is true that PHP users won't care about the difference, but it m
Re:Idiotic article. (Score:3, Informative)
RMS is unreasonable enough as it is. No need to exaggerate.
they're both right (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, RMS's concerns aren't (just) philosophical or "religious". RMS's views are based on decades of experience with bad things that can happen to software under different licenses; his concerns are real and informed.
If you want to be sure that software remains open source and that it will continue to survive and thrive, the GPL and LGPL are time-tested licenses whose consequences (both good and bad) people understand better. That doesn't mean other licenses aren't as good or maybe even better from an OSS perspective, it's just harder to know.
Re:they're both right (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong.
Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Andi Gutmans is a co-founder of the Zend company, not PHP.
Rasmus Lerdorf is the founder of PHP.
It takes a fanatic... (Score:5, Insightful)
No small distinction (Score:3, Insightful)
The result is that it's impossible to incorporate GPL software into a commercial product if you wish the software to
In other news ... (Score:3, Funny)
The DMCA has NOT been overturned
The sky is NOT falling
Since when is news what is NOT happening?
Article is all flame and no info (Score:5, Insightful)
Would someone who knows please define what exactly is the license difference being argued over?
I don't see how any slashdot reader not already familiar with the dispute can have an informed opinion on this matter to post based on that article....
Hans
I can have no respect for Gutmans (Score:3, Insightful)
"The GNU community, in my opinion, is a very fanatic community and I don't think it represents the real serious open source users. It definitely doesn't represent the PHP user base," Gutmans said.
"Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less. "They are just happy that it's a PHP license and they can do whatever they want with it and can ship it with their commercial products," he said.
It seems that almost everyone that has an alterior motive for disliking the GPL chooses to hide behind this incorrect criticism. GPL'ed code *can* be used in commercial products, and the weird thing about hearing this crap from Gutmans is that PHP is already Open Source.
- Brian.
Slashdotters: Please please please please PLEASE, (Score:4, Insightful)
I repeat: READ [gnu.org] THE [gnu.org] GPL [gnu.org] BEFORE COMMENTING ABOUT IT!!!
Other software projects follow suit... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news, Microsoft has recently announced that it has no plans to relicense Windows or Office under the GPL. Apache, Sun, Oracle, the BSD teams, and just about every other commercial software company have followed suit and not licensed their flagship products under the GPL.
The PHP team has shown great pride at being the leader in this worldwide movement of not licensing software under the GPL.
Guts (Score:3, Funny)
Who Cares? (Score:5, Funny)
What's next, a story called, "FSF Not Moving to BSD License", or "Bush Not Voting For Kerry"?
Kinda Free (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah poopy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah poopy! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll answer it anyway. The problem is that PHP is a programming language interpreter that is designed to integrate with database software. MySQL is database software, licensed under the GPL, that PHP can integrate with and which is the preferred database software of a very large percentage of PHP users.
The GPL incorporates a clause that states that if you link GPL code to any other code and distribute the result, you must license the other code under the GPL (or, equivalently, some license that contains no restrictions that the GPL doesn't). This applies even to dynamic linking.
PHP doesn't do this, so consequently, nobody can legally distribute a compiled copy of PHP with the MySQL module compiled in.
This is a big problem that must be solved one way or another. One side of the fence believes that PHP should drop all of their license restrictions that aren't in the GPL, the other believes that MySQL's client library (the portion of MySQL that needs to be linked with PHP) should be distributed under a license that doesn't contain the restriction I described above (e.g. the LGPL).
So far, there is no movement.
Partially Open Source Software (Score:3, Interesting)
If I wrote some handy software project but had a license with a clause "...everyone but Bill Gates can use it..." most of the people of the world can would be able to use it and hence its mostly open. However to say that this license is "...is very open..." is a half true. To carry on like its just as good as the GPL is dumb and shows a lack of understanding of the philosophy of the GPL.
People should be free to write whatever they like under what ever license they like. However to say "this license that is nearly as open as the GPL is just as good as the GPL" is wrong. At best, like the BSD license, it is just different (no better or worse) and at worse the license is a tool to make sure they can take some of the advantages of being mostly open yet stroke their ego because they are in absolutely control.
Andi Gutmans just doesn't want someone to come along and make a better PHP. That isn't "very open" or "just as good" as the GPL or BSD.
PHP suckage, silliness of the LAMP terminology (Score:3, Interesting)
Hm, thanks that's an interesting article. I've had the vauge impression that PHP sucks, but didn't really have a lot of ammunition on the subject (I've avoided learning much about it).
To be fair to PHP though, it does have (had?) the advantage of a smalle
Re:They're not moving to the GPL. Excellent. (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is a license, and you can license your code under the GPL, BSD, and then some license you made up if you want to, and people can use it on all of them. It's your copyright, the GPL is just the license you choose, and the people who originated it do NOT gain control of your code.
And, you can use the FSF's work without their permission in accordance with the terms of the GPL. I don't understand that statement in the least. Are you saying that somehow the GPL was written in trickery and none of it is actually valid? That's really all I can derive from that, and I would certainly like you to back up that statement that the GPL is invalid.
Open Source goes beyond the GPL. Can you explain how open source is not a movement? You make this statement without any backing of logic, and SOMEHOW get modded up. Open source is a movement, the GPL is a license, the FSF is an organization that promotes free software and the GPL...
It would seem you do have something against the GPL, spreading all of these lies... I suggest you check out the GNU website to understand more thoroughly what you are talking about. I've read the licenses and the missions statements. I also have read the actions of the organizations outside of their press releases. I suggest you do the same.
Re:They're not moving to the GPL. Excellent. (Score:5, Informative)
(OT aside: "4 Interesting" is way overrated IMO)
Re:GPL not restrictive my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
You are missing the point, or possibly phrasing yours badly.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from selling derivative works. However, for every person you sell the compiled version of that code to, you must also make the source available, under the terms of the GPL. Which means, yes, they could redistribute your code, and you might theoretically make no more profit out of it after your first sale.
So, what you're actually complaining about is the GPL restricts your freedom to use other people's hard work