[php-maint] php-text-highlighter_0.7.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

Hi All,

Jörg rejected my package because it's PHP licenced. This surprises me because 
there are many PHP-licenced PEAR modules in the archive. Could someone 
explain this to me?

On Saturday 5 January 2008 18:11, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi Maintainer,
>
> Im sorry but I need to reject this package out of NEW.
>
> The reason for this decision is the license which does not really fit
> the package. 

"Does not really fit" does not mean "non-free" to me.

> You package a php thing, either an addon "library" or a 
> php "application" which uses the PHP license. Unfortunately for you
> this license can't really be used with anything else except PHP itself.

> Shortcut for packages from the PHP group:
> There was a release of a PHP license version 3.01. That one is usable for
> stuff from the PHP group itself, but still nothing else. So if you got this
> reject having a package from that group - it most probably still uses an
> older, inappropriate, version of the PHP license. As the license usually
> allows to use a newer version of it - do it. Oh, and ask Upstream to update
> its package.

This depends on the definition of "from the PHP group", read on.

> Package not from PHP group? Read on:
> Note: It is not that the PHP license is non-free. The license itself is 
> free, *IF* and only *IF* you package PHP itself. For anything else it
> renders the package basically undistributable, as the license simply
> doesn't apply. (See also
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00124.html and following
> mails for more).

I have read that thread. I do not follow how the contents of that thread make 
up the conclusion above.

The pivotal point seems to be that the licence has texts along the lines 
of "this includes PHP" etc. While not true I also do not see a concrete harm 
in that, or how it could be used to limit the freedom of the software.

Still, some people think as PHP only as the programming language. One could, 
as in this case, also reason that PEAR is part of PHP in a broad sense of the 
word. It is afterall distributed by the PHP Group on their pear.php.net 
domain.

> Point 6 (in version 3 of the license, Point 5 in the older version 2) is
> also an advertisement clause. Bad thing which is usually discouraged. (And
> if you/Upstream made the mistake to include GPL licensed files you have
> more trouble).

Not desirable but still compliant with the DFSG.

> And, at the end there is the following text:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
> individuals on behalf of the PHP Group.
>
> The PHP Group can be contacted via Email at group at php.net.
>
> For more information on the PHP Group and the PHP project,
> please see <http://www.php.net>.
>
> This product includes the Zend Engine, freely available at
> <http://www.zend.com>.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I doubt that your package is made "on behalf of the PHP group".
> Or that it includes the Zend Engine.

This text seems inappropriate but also does not seem to form a part of the 
licence, in style and markup, and is rather a comment.

> As a good solution for this I suggest to talk to your upstream.
> Looking at the license they've chosen they do want to make it available
> for everyone, so I suggest to use either the original BSD license
> or the LGPL.

I will talk to them, but the text from ftp-master does not pinpoint the exact 
problem for me. Anyone here knows more about that?


Thijs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-php-maint/attachments/20080106/e0abfe29/attachment.pgp