Slashdot Mirror
PHP Not Moving To The GPL
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."'"
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/
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
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.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
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.
:(){
Andi Gutmans is a co-founder of the Zend company, not PHP.
Rasmus Lerdorf is the founder of PHP.
Sometimes mods will mark something "redundant" when they feel that the point has been made a million other times and is perfectly well understood, even if the point hasn't been made on this particular story.
It's better than an "overrated" mod, isn't it?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
HELLO? Does anyone actually know what the PHP license is?
It's MORE FREE than GPL. It's more like a BSD license. What the hell is everyone complaining about? THIS IS A GOOD THING.
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.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
RMS is unreasonable enough as it is. No need to exaggerate.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I can't imagine all the assets and copyrights of the FSF non-profit org being "turned over" to another party. Do you have any court cases as examples?
The FSF currently enjoys the position of probably controlling more intellectual property than any other organization on earth, partly due to a healthy roster of software to which the FSF holds copyright, but mostly because they control the GPL.
It is possible that one day in the future (RMS will die someday, as will the other people on the board) that a corporation could seize control of the FSF. It might be just that a sufficient number of people on the board become willing to sell out. There are currently six Directors of the FSF. I'm not sure what kind of majority is required to make a change. However, if a couple of corporations (say, ones with a lot of money that really didn't like the GPL), pulled together, say, $600 million dollars, perhaps they could pull a coup off. I mean, yes idealism and all that, but the FSF's board is a single point of failure, and if you've fallen upon hard times and are having trouble keeping a roof above your children's head, how far what would you do for $100 million? Would you sell a vote at a board meeting? Even if we suppose that Larry Lessig, Eben Moglen, and RMS are uncorruptable, what about their successors? What happens if a bomb goes off at a board meeting and kills the board en-masse (or, more mundanely, an plane containing members attending a FSF talk crashes)? Has the FSF made provision for such an occurrance?
The idea of modifying the GPL to allow specified "free software friendly" corporations to use GPL software without needing to release their own source in turn has come up before. It is, in fact, why Linus Torvalds releases his software as GPL v2 only (which, unfortunately, means that if a loophole is ever found in the GPL v2, there is no way to rescue his software).
Designing legal systems for the ages in a robust and resiliant manner is *hard*. How long do we expect the GPL to last for? 50 years? That's already one change of hands. 100 years? 300? The United States and its intellectual property system hasn't even been around for 300 years.
May we never see th
Wow... that's two of you who have conclusively demonstrated that you've never bothered to read the license. That's not a couple hours of reading, nor is it hard to understand. As far as licenses go, that's practically "See Spot Run". Read it, both of you, before asking any further questions.
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.
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 may discourage developers of composite systems, as they cannot legally be derived from both GPL software and PHP.
First, I am not arguing that the GPL is bad, evil, wrong, etc. It has its place and authors of software certainly have the right to prefer it. The GPL is more restrictive than some other open source licenses. The fact that its restrictions are 'well meaning" or "politically popular" does not alter the fact that it is more restrictive. That said ...
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.
Here you go. This the native FreeBSD port is built.
There are two main problems.
#1: you can distribute binaries without the source code (though you still have to use the PHP license). Okay this is really only a "problem" for some people but you can see this is anti-GPL which always requires source code.
#2: it contains this nasty clause:
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/.
a) this applies only to PHP, obviously, so I'm not sure how you would use this on a non-PHP project.
b) BAD: it includes the terms of another license but *only via an URL*. In other words, the license at the end of that URL may be totally GPL-compatible or may even be a Microsoft-style EULA. You have to assume it is GPL-incompatible, and that "spoils" the whole license.
Other than that, it's actually very much like the GPL.
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.
That's scary.
GPL License; AKA tail recursion GNU = Gnu's Not Unix GPL = General Public License so unforunately, it's not nested tail recusion, which would be pretty bada$$
It's amazing how much drivel people can write over some tiny little differences.
The GPL and the BSD (and the PHP which for some reason you group with BSD, but the terms are more similar to GPL [can't change the license]) are extremely similar in terms of "freedom".
In fact they are all (GPL, BSD, PHP) free licenses by the FSF's definition.
The Microsoft, etc., EULA's are not free, by anybody's definition (even microsoft's).
I much prefer the GPL, BSD, PHP licenses to the microsoft licenses.
I prefer the GPL and BSD though, because they are much more air-tight and well thought out. The PHP license has a big "show stopper" though: it incorporates ANOTHER license (Zend Engine license) by URL reference. That other license may be worst than GPL and MS EULA combined. It may change tomorrow, who knows!
Nitpicking does matter: legal nitpicking, the kind that might get you in court. I feel a lot more comfortable with the clearly-written and *constant* GPL, than the PHP which has this show-stopper clause.
Nitpicking over the definition of "free" is really silly, especially since ALL THE LICENSES BEING DISCUSSED ARE FREE. The only difference between GPL and BSD are visible when you *change* the software and *redistribute it*. Hardly a big deal for a majority of software *users*. The difference between GPL and PHP are that you can distribute the PHP binaries without accompanied source code. Big deal again.
This is why people think the open source "zealots" are so disconnected from reality. They break out the dictionary to nitpick "free". How's that going to help me run my business??
By the way if you want a definition for free that the FSF uses, it's on their web site.
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?
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. Even so, "barrier" still seems like an appropriate word.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I call BS. There's nothing in the GPL that says you have to turn over your copyrights to the FSF. Some people do this, some don't. Works created and distributed under the GPL do not have to be turned over to the FSF. I sincerely hope you are just misinformed and not spreading Gatesian FUD.
(OT aside: "4 Interesting" is way overrated IMO)
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.
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.
Digital Citizen
As others have correctly pointed out, you keep the copyright. Try reading the GPL. Afaik, it is only so if you are actually writing for the FSF.
No one else can use the FSF's work without the FSF's permission, just like any other proprietary software.
Can hardly be further from the truth. The FSF has developed a whole bunch of useful stuff and licensed it under the GPL. They allow you to use the binaries as you like, and give you the full source too ("may the source be with you").You can sell it for a profit (at a reasonable price), comply with a couple of restrictions (distribute the source along with the binaries) -- as long as you don't make modifications and then distribute as proprietary softare.