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."'"

Comments

GPL not restrictive my ass

[lunaticLT]

From GPL 2. b):

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

You call this freedom??

Forbidding users of your program to use it within their code and sell their programs is not about freedom. It's about imposing your worldview on other people.

Yea, right.

[cbreaker]

Ohh and everything on your "BSD'r" machine uses the BSD license? Suuuure...

You sound more like a BS'r then a BSD'r.

Re:They're not moving to the GPL. Excellent.

[melatonin]

It would seem you do have something against the GPL, spreading all of these lies..

I'm not lying, and you've misunderstood my post. I said that the FSF is a movement (it is) and when you choose to transfer rights to the FSF (I never implied that it was mandatory--in fact, I picked my words intentionally indicating that GPL-covered works belong to the copyright holders), that software becomes property of the FSF, for them to use as they see fit.