Report new bug | New search | Development Roadmap Status: Open | Feedback | All

Bug #9630 Add a paragraph on the PHP license
Submitted: 2006-12-15 15:56 UTC
From: arnaud Assigned: mj
Status: Closed Package: Documentation
PHP Version: Irrelevant OS:
Roadmaps: (Not assigned)    
Comments Add Comment Add patch

Anyone can comment on a bug. Have a simpler test case? Does it work for you on a different platform? Let us know! Just going to say 'Me too!'? Don't clutter the database with that please !
Your email address:
Solve the problem : 14 - 9 = ?

 [2006-12-15 15:56 UTC] arnaud (Arnaud Limbourg)
Description: ------------ As Rasmus pointed out on the pear-dev list " It all comes down to semantics of what linking means. The PHP license is pretty much identical to the Apache license and you could indeed make a case for not allowing any GPL'ed software to be "linked to" from Apache either. See The PHP license was chosen to match the Apache license because Apache and PHP are tied so closely to each other. This hair splitting over linking, derivation and aggregation has been going on since the beginning of time. My stance is that you can indeed ship PHP licensed PEAR components on the same cd or in the same tarball as GPL'ed code because I see it as an aggregate work. This changes if you take PEAR code, modify it and copy-paste it directly into your own work. Then it moves from aggregate to derived. But the intent of the PEAR components is to be used in aggregate form. The PHP license allows you to use it in derived form as well, of course, but then you should be choosing a license other than the GPL for the derived work. The FSF has a FAQ on aggregation here: That text is heavily biased towards compiled software and they talk about executables and memory spaces which don't really apply in this case. If you don't consider using a PEAR component as aggregation then it logically follows that you also cannot have Apache call your code so you will have to stipulate that nobody can use your code from Apache. I think this is an extreme interpretation that pretty much nobody out there shares. In short, I don't see an issue here. Move along. -Rasmus "


 [2006-12-16 11:40 UTC] mj (Martin Jansen)
Rasmus' stance is now cited directly in the FAQ.
 [2006-12-20 21:10 UTC] beuc at beuc dot net (Sylvain Beucler)
Hi, The rest of the conversation, namely and discussed this statement. It would be good to disrecommend the PHP License for new PEAR packages instead (in favor of New BSD), due to this problem of incompatibility. Can you do that?
 [2006-12-23 12:26 UTC] mj (Martin Jansen)
This no documentation problem but something that needs to be discussed on pear-dev.
 [2007-01-01 18:40 UTC] beuc at beuc dot net (Beuc)
The post from Rasmus is incorrect and confuses aggregation with derivation. If you don't think so, then you could as well post my immediate follow-up I linked above where I explain that in detail (surprisingly your list archive does not display links to follow-ups) - but letting that online is just spreading misinformation, just don't do that.