 |
|
|
|
Next: Bug#524426: does not install org.Coherence.servic..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 08, 2006
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:20 pm
Post subject: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL
Archived from groups: linux>debian>legal (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi,
For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for
PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5. The two licences are regarded as incompatible
due to the restriction on names containing "PHP" in clause 4 of the PHP
licence. The build process doesn't link against PHP (on Linux), though
it does use PHP API header files.
PHP is a rather noisy search term (since lots of URLs end ".php") but my
research of past debian-legal discussion eventually found this from
Steve Langasek:
There are several other PHP extensions in circulation that use GPLed
libraries, some of them distributed with the PHP source itself. (The
readline extension is one example.) Binaries for these modules can't be
distributed in Debian, but that doesn't mean you can't write a PHP
extension for a GPL library and distribute it on your own.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/7867
Also, note that Xapian upstream don't control the copyright of all the
code, so aren't able to add a special exception to the licence to allow
for the PHP naming restriction. And it seems from past debian-legal
discussion that PHP upstream are rather attached to this clause (though
it seems to me a trademark would achieve the intended ends much better
as a licence clause only has power over software derived from PHP
itself). So I don't see relicensing as a plausible route for fixing
this problem.
So my questions are:
* Is the quote above an accurate summary of the currently accepted
interpretation? (That mail is from 2003 so perhaps things have
changed since).
* If so, is there anything which can be done other than removing
php5-xapian from the archive?
* Assuming php5-xapian must be removed from the archive, can the
xapian-bindings source package (which builds bindings for python,
ruby, etc too) continue to include (now unused) source code for it, or
do I need to prepare a special "dfsg" version of the upstream source
tarball without this code? (I notice Steve says "binaries for these
modules", which hints that source may be OK).
Cheers,
Olly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:20 am
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Olly Betts <olly RemoveThis @survex.com> wrote:
> For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
Will you summarise/link or should we cc?
[...]
> Steve Langasek:
>
> There are several other PHP extensions in circulation that use GPLed
> libraries, some of them distributed with the PHP source itself. (The
> readline extension is one example.) Binaries for these modules can't be
> distributed in Debian, but that doesn't mean you can't write a PHP
> extension for a GPL library and distribute it on your own.
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/7867
[...]
> * Is the quote above an accurate summary of the currently accepted
> interpretation? (That mail is from 2003 so perhaps things have
> changed since).
I think it's still accurate. More recent links can be found in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00117.html
The FSF seems to support the general idea of GPL-incompatibility in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> * If so, is there anything which can be done other than removing
> php5-xapian from the archive?
Relicensing in some way. It might not be simple or even possible, but
it seems like the only alternative I can see. See
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/reporting-fixing-violations
for a helpful guide.
> * Assuming php5-xapian must be removed from the archive, can the
> xapian-bindings source package (which builds bindings for python,
> ruby, etc too) continue to include (now unused) source code for it, or
> do I need to prepare a special "dfsg" version of the upstream source
> tarball without this code? (I notice Steve says "binaries for these
> modules", which hints that source may be OK).
http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only
happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 05, 2009
Posts: 7
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only
> happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK.
I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also illegal if you
just distribute the other program and have the user do the link.
This is the same situation, and therefore would be a GPL violation.
(And I was also under the impression that Debian follows the wishes of the
copyright holder, so it doesn't matter if this argument has any legal merit,
just that the FSF makes it.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 25, 2009
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0904170825550.19077-100000.RemoveThis@violet.rahul.net>,
Ken Arromdee <arromdee.RemoveThis@rahul.net> writes
>On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
>> http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only
>> happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK.
>
>I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
>link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also illegal if you
>just distribute the other program and have the user do the link.
HOW? I hope the FSF doesn't think this, because imho it is so sloppy
legal thinking as to be incompetent!
>
>This is the same situation, and therefore would be a GPL violation.
>
>(And I was also under the impression that Debian follows the wishes of the
>copyright holder, so it doesn't matter if this argument has any legal merit,
>just that the FSF makes it.)
>
Just to explain why the FSF *must* be wrong, ask yourself who *needs*
the GPL in the situation you describe. The distributor isn't
distributing GPL'd software, so he doesn't need it. The user doesn't
need the GPL in order to *use* the GPL'd software - that is EXplicit in
the GPL.
So where's the violation? Who is copying/distributing/using GPL software
in violation of the GPL?
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony.RemoveThis@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 05, 2009
Posts: 7
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:20 pm
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 29, 2006
Posts: 152
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:20 pm
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Olly Betts:
> To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for
> PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5.
The PHP license is fine if you use Xapian under the GPLv3. The
remaining problem is the Zend license, which contains an advertizing
clause. For historical/political reasons, the FSF does not want to
make the GPL compatible with such licenses, unfortunately.
As a workaround, you can ship php5-xapian packages from your own
server because you can make use of the system library exception.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 08, 2006
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:20 am
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2009-04-17, Francesco Poli <frx DeleteThis @firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:09:57 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Olly Betts:
>>
>> > To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for
>> > PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5.
>>
>> The PHP license is fine if you use Xapian under the GPLv3.
>
> The FSF seems to disagree: quoting from
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>
>| PHP License, Version 3.01
>|
>| This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free
>| software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL because it
>| includes strong restrictions on the use of "PHP" in the name of
>| derived products.
>|
>| We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP
>| add-ons.
>
> As you may see, GPL *incompatibility* is explicitly stated.
It's possible this FAQ entry may not have been updated for GPLv3 - I
notice that it talks about PHP4, which is obsolete now, and PHP5 predates
GPLv3.
I guess Florian's thinking is based on additional restrictions allowed
by GPLv3 7c:
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
reasonable ways as different from the original version
If so, the key issue seems to be whether the naming restriction in section 4
of the PHP licence can be considered "reasonable":
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from group DeleteThis @php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
Since the FSF FAQ describes these as "strong restrictions", I guess they
at least probably wouldn't regard them as "reasonable".
Cheers,
Olly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 08, 2006
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:20 am
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2009-04-17, MJ Ray <mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Olly Betts <olly DeleteThis @survex.com> wrote:
>> For reference, this is #513796 in the BTS.
>
> Will you summarise/link or should we cc?
Good question. Since I didn't Cc: the start of the thread, I'll update
the bug with a link to this thread, and summarise the consensus if/when
one is reached.
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/7867
> [...]
>> * Is the quote above an accurate summary of the currently accepted
>> interpretation? (That mail is from 2003 so perhaps things have
>> changed since).
>
> I think it's still accurate. More recent links can be found in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00117.html
Hmm, neither this nor any of the linked messages seem to talk about GPL
compatibility though - they all seem to be discussing if the PHP licence
is DFSG compatible at all, and whether it's OK for non-PHP group code.
>> * If so, is there anything which can be done other than removing
>> php5-xapian from the archive?
>
> Relicensing in some way. It might not be simple or even possible, but
> it seems like the only alternative I can see.
It's not possible on the Xapian side (unless/until all the "Open Muscat"
code is replaced), and it seems unlikely on the PHP side. Given others
seem to have tried and failed to do something about the PHP naming
clause, I don't feel optimistic about my own chances.
>> * Assuming php5-xapian must be removed from the archive, can the
>> xapian-bindings source package (which builds bindings for python,
>> ruby, etc too) continue to include (now unused) source code for it, or
>> do I need to prepare a special "dfsg" version of the upstream source
>> tarball without this code? (I notice Steve says "binaries for these
>> modules", which hints that source may be OK).
>
> http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only
> happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK.
Yes, there's no code under the PHP licence in the upstream Xapian
tarballs.
Cheers,
Olly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 29, 2006
Posts: 152
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Olly Betts:
> It's possible this FAQ entry may not have been updated for GPLv3 - I
> notice that it talks about PHP4, which is obsolete now, and PHP5 predates
> GPLv3.
Yes, I think this may be the case.
> I guess Florian's thinking is based on additional restrictions allowed
> by GPLv3 7c:
>
> c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
> requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
> reasonable ways as different from the original version
Right, and there is also this one:
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
authors of the material; or
(When applied to the *PHP* group.) And:
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
> If so, the key issue seems to be whether the naming restriction in section 4
> of the PHP licence can be considered "reasonable":
>
> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
> may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
> from group DeleteThis @php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
> conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
> it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
This may not be covered by c), but I think it's covered by e).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 08, 2006
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2009-04-17, Ken Arromdee <arromdee.RemoveThis@rahul.net> wrote:
> (And I was also under the impression that Debian follows the wishes of the
> copyright holder, so it doesn't matter if this argument has any legal merit,
> just that the FSF makes it.)
Note that there's no FSF copyright code in the xapian-bindings upstream
tarball, except for files generated by autoconf, automake, and libtool
which are all either not GPL or GPL+exception.
So the FSF isn't a relevant copyright holder that I can see, whatever
Debian's policy in such matters might be.
Cheers,
Olly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 18, 2009
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Post subject: Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0904171144360.27732-100000 DeleteThis @violet.rahul.net>,
Ken Arromdee <arromdee DeleteThis @rahul.net> writes
>On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>> >I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
>> >link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also
>> >illegal if you
>> >just distribute the other program and have the user do the link.
>> HOW? I hope the FSF doesn't think this, because imho it is so sloppy
>> legal thinking as to be incompetent!
>
>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/guile/1999-02/msg00151.html
This talks about "static or dynamic linking". I don't actually see how
it applies, because if it's statically linked it's a clear violation -
the person distributing the program has to distribute the library as
well. But if it's dynamically linked and the program - as distributed -
merely EXPECTS to find the library on the target machine, I don't see
any violation.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html
I don't understand this.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
>
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
>
>Also http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript :
>
>Eben Moglen: As when, for example, people tried to draw a line between
>static linking and dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to
>keep telling people that whatever the boundary of the work is under
>copyright law, it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link
>time or run time.
>
Ummm...
This whole thing is a rather grey area, but I still stick by what I
said. You may have noticed references to the "system library exception".
Is that there as a valid exception, or because they're not sure whether
it'll stick in court?
At the end of the day, if the proprietary program does not contain any
GPL code *as* *shipped*, I find it hard to see a "copyright violation"
suit sticking. Who is violating the GPL? The FSF would like to say it's
the proprietary vendor but ... (and it's certainly not the user, the GPL
explicitly says they're in the clear).
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony DeleteThis @thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux