Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PHP Programming GNU is Not Unix

PHP Not Moving To The GPL 629

Posted by timothy from the freedom-of-choice dept.
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."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PHP Not Moving To The GPL More

PHP Not Moving To The GPL

Comments Filter:
  • Really, it looks to me like the crux of the issue is that the devlopers of PHP don't like being told what 'free' means. And really, who can blame them? Freedom is certainly worth speaking up for, but from what I got from the article it seems as though all the parties concerned are using free licenses. In fact, I think that Gutman nailed it when he said "As long as they are not inhibited from being able to use PHP I don't see a problem from the end user's perspective. Personally I don't really see a big problem."

    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)

      by Unnngh! ( 731758 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:52PM (#9743109)
      Nonsense. Freedom is what RMS says it is. Anyone stating a dissenting opinion should be silenced in order to protect said freedom.

    • Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deanj ( 519759 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:53PM (#9743114)
      If only people would give Sun and Java this same consideration.

      • Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:29PM (#9743418) Journal
        The problem is that ESR decided to go on a (particularly embarassing for the open source community, and not very diplomatically done) jihad to try to get Sun to open-source their Java implementation.

        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.
        • Fan and fanatic share the same root. Why must people follow ESR or RMS. It is almost as funny as the people getting all bent over what the Dixie Chicks said about Bush. Why should I care what a singer thinks about politics any more than I care what the wife of a senator thinks about music "Thanks Tipper, those warning labels really helped a lot. How much did those hearings cost?"
          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

          • Why should I really care what ESR or RMS thinks about the software I choose to use?

            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.

            I mean all this talk about freedom shouldn't I have the right to choose what software I use?

            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.

            Shouldn't I also have the right to choose how I want to release any software I write? If I want to GPL it great, If I want to BSD it that is good also. If I want to charge ONE BILLION DOLLARS for it well then it is my work and if you do not like it write it yourself.

            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.


            • "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

    • Why GPL compatible is good: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:36PM (#9743450) Homepage
      In the 80's, there was a GCC Public License, an Emacs Public License, and a GDB Public License. This made it awkward for people to mix the source code of these projects, so Stallman wrote a General Public License. The goal was to enable projects to share code. (remove the legal reading and interpretation and let hackers hack.)

      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]

  • PHP seems to be GPL compatible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) <seebert42@gmail.com> on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:52PM (#9743104) Homepage Journal
    Why should everything down to the machine code have to have a GPL license? It seems to me that there's nothing in PHP's license that would prevent you from licensing YOUR software that YOU wrote in PHP with GPL (just as there's nothing in .NET's license preventing you from using it as the language to write open source in).
    • Well, once again the Mad Modder has struck- Redundant? How? Nobody else I see has made this subtle point.

    • Re:PHP seems to be GPL compatible (Score:4, Informative)

      by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @09:35PM (#9743957)
      PHP code licensed under the GPL isn't a problem. I've done that myself. The problems got started when MySQL changed/clarified their license. PHP had to be linked against MySQL for the MySQL integration to work. This made using the very popular LAMP software stack legally ambiguous to distribute. You could still legally use such a stack but you had to build and link PHP yourself to get the MySQL integration.

      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)

    by theguywhosaid ( 751709 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:52PM (#9743108) Homepage
    We're aware of each other, but the PHP project has no intention of moving to some sort of GPL license.

    In other news, I need to go to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number

  • umm.. that article is about MySQL (Score:5, Informative)

    by joeldg ( 518249 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:54PM (#9743127) Homepage
    Sheesh, that article is about MySQL's license which they had changed to not allow vendors to redistribute the server and the client.

    php has it's license info here:
    http://www.php.net/license/

    • http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5173014.html?part= rss&tag=feed&subj=news

      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)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:56PM (#9743143)
    Oh yea? Well I'll just go and make my own license. With strippers and blackjack. In fact, forget about the license and the blackjack.

  • No to GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toonerh ( 518351 ) * on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:57PM (#9743150)
    I agree with Gutmans completely. Richard Stallman's GPL is free like Henry Ford's quote: "You can have any color as long as it's black." You can link anything with GPL'ed code as long as it's other GPL (or GPL-equivalent) code.

    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)

      by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:01PM (#9743186) Homepage
      Code migrates from BSD to Linux (but not Linux to BSD) because of GPL

      That's why they say it's more free. Oh wait...

      • Re:No to GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

        by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:18PM (#9743338)
        That's why they say it's more free. Oh wait...

        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)

          by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @09:19PM (#9743815) Homepage
          Freedom of the code
          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.
          • Let's not abuse the word freedom... Well, freedom is being free.

            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)

            by abe ferlman ( 205607 ) <bgtrio@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Monday July 19, 2004 @11:28PM (#9744772) Homepage Journal
            If you want to control what happens to your code, you put restrictions to it. That removes freedom. Period. Get over it.

            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)

              by Pieroxy ( 222434 )
              I don't want to control code that I license under the GPL - I want to make sure NO ONE controls it
              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:5, Insightful)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:48PM (#9743553) Journal
        It all depends on whether short-term freedom of code or long-term freedom of code is important to you.

        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.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jwthompson2 ( 749521 ) *
      The only problem with the BSD license and others like it is that it permits the code to be gobbled up by corporate interests and take away the freedom of the end user/developer. The GPL preserves the freedom of the code to be accessible at the expense of disallowing corporate users to relicense and hide that code from its users. BSD and similar licenses are more 'free' but it violates the sense of community that FOSS is, in theory, about. Open Source is by far more corporate friendly but is not necessarily

      • Re:No to GPL (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jadavis ( 473492 )
        Let's say a program is licensed with BSD. The theory behind the GPL says that a corporation can make a closed version of the same software, but add in a bunch of "must-have" features and lure people to use their improved (but closed) version. Short-sighted people might be lured away and the open version would disappear.

        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)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:58PM (#9743152)
    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.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This "you can still make money" bullshit is rediculous. I can still make money giving away GPL software by working at fucking McDonalds too, but I want to sell software, so I am not going to do that. You can't say people are bad or wrong for wanting to sell software, or for saying that the GPL prevents them from doing so, cause it does. Not everyone can or wants to be a service or support company, the GPL will never be everywhere, so deal with it and quit calling FUD when people don't do things the RMS w
      • Agreed. The "still make money" argument here is similar to "musicians shouldn't mind if everyone downloads their stuff from kazaa because they can still make money selling tshirts and concert tickets".

      • Re:Its not FUD, you are spreading FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:13PM (#9743292)
        quit calling FUD when people don't do things the RMS way.

        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.

      • Not everyone can or wants to be a service or support company

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I agree with you on some points but overall, people seem to underestimate the pain in the ass that GPL can be if you have a small development staff.

      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
    • He's not saying the GPL is communist. He's saying people using PHP don't give a crap what license it's distributed under. They go to work, do some coding, and go home to have sex. You read far too much into it.

  • Please explain... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @07:58PM (#9743158)
    Can someone here please explain in a language that a lay man understands, what the PHP license is all about? The GPL is very clear..."take the code, use it in what ever you like, but if you ever include it in any products, the recipients of your software must be able to get the source-code with the same rights as you got from the GPLed code..." That is in the lay-mans language.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:16PM (#9743317)
      > The GPL is very clear
      Umm have you every tried to read the GPL?

    • Re:Please explain... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:59PM (#9743645)

      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)

        by spectecjr ( 31235 )
        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?

        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)

        by Otto ( 17870 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @01:57AM (#9745767) Homepage Journal
        Everybody is griping about how PHP's license is incompatible with the GPL (meaning you cannot really use stuff under the PHP license with stuff under the GPL license together). So let's look it over, shall we?

        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.
  • This might have an obvious answer or something, but I just don't see it. I was under the impression that once you submit your code to an open source project, you're submitting it under the current lisence of the project. When a project changes it's lisence, do they need to contact everyone who has submitted code to the project and get permission to release under the new lisence? That doesn't sound like an easy task for some large projects, so I'm guessing that's not how it's done. Can someone clarify this for me?
    • Many projects require that you turn over the copyright to your code when you submit it. Those projects do not need to contact submitters in order to change the license.

      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.
    • Some require a copyright assignment from all contributors, that gives them the (legal) right to change the license as they see fit. Others do not and must indeed check with all contributors before changing the license. This is not generally a problem though, a well written license (e.g. GPL) states that future revisions of the license may be used so updating the Linux code from GPL2 to GPL3 (when it arrives and assuming Linus wishes to use it) will not be a problem. It also protects the code author from

    • Re:How do open source projects change lisences? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:27PM (#9743397)
      Well, here's an example:

      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)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:00PM (#9743171) Homepage
    Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less
    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)

    by POds ( 241854 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:01PM (#9743180) Homepage Journal
    PHP has got something good, why change it? I'm with... that dude on this, when i wrote php i didnt care about the licence only that i could download and use it for free ($0). I consider the GPL a good licence but PHP has a good thing going and i dont think it needs a GPL licence or that it could benifit alot from it.
  • With PHP5, PHP langauge is very useful and powerful now, is this the turning point that gives the creators the idea that it can actually be used to make a profit the other way?

  • read the license? (Score:5, Informative)

    by quelrods ( 521005 ) * <(quel) (at) (quelrod.net)> on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:03PM (#9743204) Homepage
    If you read the text of the php license it would appear to be almost on par with a bsd license. RMS prob is upset because it would appear the license does not require releasing source code if you realease modified binaries. It's all semantics of the word free. Free as in cannot be closed again or free as in you can do whatever you want with it. Nothing more than a bsd v gpl debate and neither camp with change the others mind anytime soon.

  • Idiotic article. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:03PM (#9743206) Journal
    Is RMS' complaint that PHP's license is too open & BSD-like, or is his complaint that PHP's license is too closed and Sun-like?

    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]:
    PHP License, Version 3.0
    This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons.
    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)

      by iabervon ( 1971 )
      It is BSD-like, but old BSD with advertizing clauses. It requires you to include a set of notices in your derived work, and restricts the names you can give a derived work. RMS's statement should be read as:

      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

  • they're both right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dekeji ( 784080 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:04PM (#9743222)
    The PHP license seems to be working pretty well for PHP right now, so there may not be a need to change it. And, of course, if you write the software, you get to pick the license. But other people still have a right to debate and criticize you as well.

    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.
    • You mean how Apache has been so greatly destroyed because it hasn't adhered to the GPL. I mean, it only has 60% of the market for web servers, but if it were GPLed, my god, we're talking about close to 100% marketshare.... right?

      Wrong.

  • Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

    by destiney ( 149922 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:05PM (#9743243) Homepage

    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)

    by farmer11 ( 573883 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:26PM (#9743387)
    Maybe RMS is a little fanatical - but be thankful for that. Look at all the great software his vision has provided us with. It's fine to complain and stuff, but I think he's given more to us (the little people) than anyone else (I can think of) for so little (free!). Also, the small distiction between GPL and the PHP license (which I don't understand) may one day in the more distant future be a big deal! For one, I'm glad RMS is out there taking the hard stance with eyes to the future.
    • There is a huge distinction between GPL and PHP licenses. You can incorporate PHP software into your proprietary software, and it remains proprietary. You only have to acknowledge the presence of the software. If you incorporate GPL software into yours, you must make available the entire linked source to anyone you distribute the binary to. And they can distribute the source to anyone else.

      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)

    by binaryfeed ( 225333 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:26PM (#9743388) Homepage
    I am NOT changing my name to Barnaby ...

    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)

    by hansreiser ( 6963 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:27PM (#9743399) Homepage
    It completely fails to define what exactly is the license difference being argued over. Oh well, I guess that wasn't of interest.... the flaming was what was interesting to the reporter/editor.

    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)

    by Brian Blessed ( 258910 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:36PM (#9743451)
    Andi Gutmans seems to have considered his comments for very little time, or is intentionally choosing to label a diverse group of people with FUD like this:

    "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)

    by Dwonis ( 52652 ) * on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:41PM (#9743500)
    Before commenting about the GNU General Public License [gnu.org] (the " GPL [gnu.org]"), READ THE GPL [gnu.org].

    I repeat: READ [gnu.org] THE [gnu.org] GPL [gnu.org] BEFORE COMMENTING ABOUT IT!!!

  • Other software projects follow suit... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by noda132 ( 531521 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:49PM (#9743563) Homepage

    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.

  • Who Cares? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Percy_Blakeney ( 542178 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @08:56PM (#9743621) Homepage
    Why is this important? I could see the relevance of an article entitled, "PHP Moving to GPL", but this is a total non-issue. Commenting on a remote possibility that doesn't take place is typically not news-worthy.

    What's next, a story called, "FSF Not Moving to BSD License", or "Bush Not Voting For Kerry"?

  • Kinda Free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Compenguin ( 175952 ) on Monday July 19, 2004 @09:12PM (#9743753)
    The thing that bothers me about PHP is that it is Free... unless you want it to run fast [zend.com]. Even the "free" Zend Optimizer is closed source. It makes me wonder if optimizing patches to the Zend Engine (PHP Engine) would be rejected because they compete with Zend's buisness model. I know Zend doesn't owe me anything, but the fact that fast PHP is not free should weighed properly when evelauting solutions.

  • Ah poopy! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Martigan80 ( 305400 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @12:42AM (#9745417) Journal
    Why does this always come up? I in particular hate the extremists on both sides of the fence. Why must everything be GPL compatible? It is a rhetorical question. Think of licenses as governments. If every country where a democracy the world would be dull, corrupt, and would never get Jack or his friend to do anything for a decent price. The fact is we_need_veriety in our diet. The whole idea, theory, religion of open source is great and commendable--but it does not work in all situations. Please do not bring the fight that if everyone would learn how to program under Linux the world would be colorful and full of pretty butterflies. That's just plain poopy. That is like telling 1 billion Chinese people that they have to learn English if they want to be successful.

    • Re:Ah poopy! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by julesh ( 229690 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @07:19AM (#9746972)
      Why does this always come up? I in particular hate the extremists on both sides of the fence. Why must everything be GPL compatible? It is a rhetorical question.

      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)

    by EXTomar ( 78739 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @09:37AM (#9747988)
    The license favors him so why would he care? And the people who it doesn't favor should just shut up because they are fanatical?

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close