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."'"
Really, it looks to me like the crux of the issue is that the devlopers of PHP don't like being told what 'free' means. And really, who can blame them? Freedom is certainly worth speaking up for, but from what I got from the article it seems as though all the parties concerned are using free licenses. In fact, I think that Gutman nailed it when he said "As long as they are not inhibited from being able to use PHP I don't see a problem from the end user's perspective. Personally I don't really see a big problem."
I have to say that I don't see one either.
Why should everything down to the machine code have to have a GPL license? It seems to me that there's nothing in PHP's license that would prevent you from licensing YOUR software that YOU wrote in PHP with GPL (just as there's nothing in .NET's license preventing you from using it as the language to write open source in).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
In other news, I need to go to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number
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.
Oh yea? Well I'll just go and make my own license. With strippers and blackjack. In fact, forget about the license and the blackjack.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I agree with Gutmans completely. Richard Stallman's GPL is free like Henry Ford's quote: "You can have any color as long as it's black." You can link anything with GPL'ed code as long as it's other GPL (or GPL-equivalent) code.
I'll take the BSD license anytime. Code migrates from BSD to Linux (but not Linux to BSD) because of GPL.
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.
Up to "user base", I thought Andi was doing a good thing (he takes shots at RMS' fanatism, that can't be all bad can it?).
But his implying that RMS and the FSF stand against making a living off of GPLed products totally misses the point, and makes him lose all coolness factor in my eyes. This is a common mistake that most everybody who does not understand the GPL makes: does the GPL prevent you from making money the Microsoft way? certainly. Does it prevent you from making money? certainly not (see RH, SuSE,...). Is it harder to make money off of GPL products? probably, in the traditional sense, the answer is probably in the services around them.
That Slashdotters and other hysterical Linux fans mistake the GPL for a money-grubbing-prevention license is sad but it's all too common. That somebody as prominent as Andi should make himself look like a fool by spewing the same sort of FUD, that's just wrong. I dislike RMS as much as anyone, but I'll credit the guy for saying over and over again that his aim is *not* to prevent people from making a living with software.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Now, can some one please paste what the PHP license is all about. Please understand that the lay-man might not easily understand legal terms, myself included.
This might have an obvious answer or something, but I just don't see it. I was under the impression that once you submit your code to an open source project, you're submitting it under the current lisence of the project. When a project changes it's lisence, do they need to contact everyone who has submitted code to the project and get permission to release under the new lisence? That doesn't sound like an easy task for some large projects, so I'm guessing that's not how it's done. Can someone clarify this for me?
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less
I doubt it. There is a huge non-profit/amateur base of users--look no further than the numerous php projects hosted on sourceforge.
How many major for-profit php apps can you name? Yes, many commercial sites use PHP. But a ton of noncommercial sites do too.
It is somewhat sad that the PHP developers don't see "the rest of us" as a significant portion of their user base, just as it was sad to see RMS not understand that his political message surrounding free software was turning many people off.
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.
:(){
If it's too BSD-like, then this is a completely meaningless debate. CEO dude is right, PHP's users won't care. If it's too Sun-like, then there's something to talk about.
Oh. Here's what RMS says:That's still vague. What's the hiccup? It looks like RMS has no ideological problem with this license. Is there a new, worse license?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
The PHP license seems to be working pretty well for PHP right now, so there may not be a need to change it. And, of course, if you write the software, you get to pick the license. But other people still have a right to debate and criticize you as well.
OTOH, RMS's concerns aren't (just) philosophical or "religious". RMS's views are based on decades of experience with bad things that can happen to software under different licenses; his concerns are real and informed.
If you want to be sure that software remains open source and that it will continue to survive and thrive, the GPL and LGPL are time-tested licenses whose consequences (both good and bad) people understand better. That doesn't mean other licenses aren't as good or maybe even better from an OSS perspective, it's just harder to know.
Andi Gutmans is a co-founder of the Zend company, not PHP.
Rasmus Lerdorf is the founder of PHP.
quit calling FUD when people don't do things the RMS way.
I call FUD the way Andi implies things the GPL does not say. People who look up to Andi will get distorted impressions about the GPL. It's crap like that that makes developers and software business owners go "GPL? uuh that's baaad" without even knowing what it's about.
I don't deny anybody the right to think differently than RMS. I'm not a huge fan of RMS myself, and I know very well the GPL isn't right for everything. But there's so much misconceptions about the GPL, and I think prominent people like Andi have a duty to speak some sort of truth about it. Once people know what it allows them to do or not do, they are free to not use it, but at least the decision will be made on more than bullshit they once read or heard somewhere.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Maybe RMS is a little fanatical - but be thankful for that. Look at all the great software his vision has provided us with. It's fine to complain and stuff, but I think he's given more to us (the little people) than anyone else (I can think of) for so little (free!). Also, the small distiction between GPL and the PHP license (which I don't understand) may one day in the more distant future be a big deal! For one, I'm glad RMS is out there taking the hard stance with eyes to the future.
It completely fails to define what exactly is the license difference being argued over. Oh well, I guess that wasn't of interest.... the flaming was what was interesting to the reporter/editor.
Would someone who knows please define what exactly is the license difference being argued over?
I don't see how any slashdot reader not already familiar with the dispute can have an informed opinion on this matter to post based on that article....
Hans
In the 80's, there was a GCC Public License, an Emacs Public License, and a GDB Public License. This made it awkward for people to mix the source code of these projects, so Stallman wrote a General Public License. The goal was to enable projects to share code. (remove the legal reading and interpretation and let hackers hack.)
Every now and again, someone who doesn't know the history, repeats it's mistakes.
Stallman asks people to use the GPL, but he doesn't take issue with people using other compatible licenses. He asks people to move to a compatible license - not necessarily the GPL - if their current license is incompatible. He's seen the problem, he's seen the solution, he tries to show people the two.
Another on-topic article is David Wheelers "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else."
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I repeat: READ THE GPL BEFORE COMMENTING ABOUT IT!!!
the grandparent wasn't talking about overuse of acronyms, but about not knowing what the acronyms mean.
ATM = Automatic Teller Machine
PIN = Personal Identification Number
so saying "ATM machine to type in my PIN number" is incorrect repetition just like "GPL licence" (GNU Public Licence licence)
What's next, a story called, "FSF Not Moving to BSD License", or "Bush Not Voting For Kerry"?
Now with recursion at the front AND back of the acronym!
Tweet, tweet.
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.
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 maximizes the collective benefit to society at large at the expense of individual liberty. This is, by definition, a socalist philosophy.
BSD maximizes individual liberty at the potential expense of society as a whole. This is, by definition, a libertarian philosophy.
Compelling another to a course of action against their will is the antithesis of freedom. You can't force other people to be socially responsible. Freedom includes the right to be an asshole.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I don't see how misapplying a ton of definitions helps clarify which license is "free-er". A better way to look at is by analogy.
Take two imaginary places: the US as governed by the constitution, and Anarchyland. (The fact that I refer to the US as governed by the constitution as an imaginary place can by interperted as you like.)
In the US, there are many laws that restrict what you can do: you can't kill people, and you cant buy a television station and broadcast 24/7 that your neighbor picks his nose (unless you neighbor is a public figure, of course). By the techincal definition you seem to be using, every one of these laws takes away your freedom, thus making you less free. In that technical sense, I agree.
In Anarchyland, you can do whatever you want. There are absolutely no laws against anything. You can kill your neighbor if he picks his nose in public. According to your technical definition, Anarchyland has the absolute maximum freedom that could ever be achieved in a society.
Now, look at the end result. In Anarchyland, nobody can leave their house, because they are afraid of being killed. It is incredibly unsafe to drive on the highway, and the end result is that people can hardly do anything. In contrast, the US allows people to basically do what they want, when they want, provided they dont want to kill people. I would call this freedom.
To avoid pissing off the libertarians, I should specify that the analysis doesn't have to work out the way I described it. Perhaps Anarchyland actually provides more freedom in the end. My point is that simply looking at the statues themselves is not enough to determine the freedom they provide or protect. It is necessary to analyze the end result and determine how it affects freedom overall. Simply stating that the GPL has more restrictions is like stating that the US has stricter laws against murder, so people in the US are less free than people in Iraq.
Except no one is forced to use GPL software. If you don't like it, use something else.
The GPL is quite compatible with capitalism: The author retains copyright, but allows others to redistribute derivative works, provided the source for the derivative work is available under the same terms. Quid pro quo.
Hmmm, wouldn't forcing people to be socially responsible make you an asshole? QED. Anyway, nothing forces you to accept the GPL, since you can choose to not create derivative works.
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
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)
Everybody is griping about how PHP's license is incompatible with the GPL (meaning you cannot really use stuff under the PHP license with stuff under the GPL license together). So let's look it over, shall we?
Statements 1, 2, and 3 are extremely similar to the stuff you'll find in any and all BSD type licenses. They're basically straight rips from the BSD license, just reworded slightly. This is totally GPL compatible, as these are even less restrictive than the GPL is.
Statement 4 is similar to some parts of the GPL, but essentially it's just saying that they're retaining copyright and thus can change the license. As such, it's not particularly useful or informative, and I'd count it as a null factor. Especially since they cannot retroactively change a license, under any circumstances. This does not break GPL compatibility.
Statement 5 is the one that actually makes it GPL-incompatible, as the GPL states that you cannot place restrictions on the thing above and beyond the GPL itself. So if you derive something from GPL code and PHP-licensed code, it becomes essentially impossible to adhere to both licenses at once. You have to include a statement in your resulting license about this combined thing containing PHP code, while the GPL forbids you from placing that statement into the resulting combined license. Incompatible.
Statement 6 is interesting, because it states that the Zend section is separately licensed if you separate the thing from PHP or modify Zend itself. All this really states is that if you do mess with Zend, you need to rethink your licensing scheme. This may or may not be compatible with the GPL, depending on the resulting Zend license. However, it's most likely incompatible with the GPL, as it places an additional restriction on the use of the combined code that the GPL does not allow, namely that you have to relicense if you modify Zend itself.
Reconciliation:
Statement 5 can be reconciled with the GPL easily: Remove it. That's the only way to make the PHP license compatible there.
Statement 6 is harder. The upshot here is that you'd have to remove it form the resulting combined license and separate Zend from PHP entirely, not distributing it at all. This could be problematic at best.
Upshot:
Avoid using the PHP licensed code with GPL licensed code. Getting them to work together is essentially impossible. It's most likely easier to simply reinvent the wheel, on one side or the other.
Which is more "free":
Depends on your definition of free.
-The GPL places one major restriction on you, namely that the resulting code and changes you make to GPL code is also available under the GPL itself.
-The PHP license places restriction 5 on you, which frankly ain't much, and restriction 6, which is a tough one to deal with if you do anything whatsoever to the Zend engine. Restriction 6 is most definitely bad, except that the vast majority of users of PHP licensed code won't be modifying the Zend engine and so it won't apply to them. It's probably one of the requirements for using Zend, and while it blows, it's not unworkable.
Which would I use:
-If I used GPL code, I'm forced to use the GPL.
-If I used PHP code, I'm not forced to do shit except put in a small one liner or something.
-If I write my own code, I can do whatever I damn well please... And that's the important one here. I would personally not use nor emulate the PHP license, as it's really just a BSD license with some extra bits tossed in. I'd use a BSD license instead, if such was my intent (BSD basically puts it out there similar to being in the public domain, but with copyright retention, just in case). If I wanted the code to stay free forever, as in free for everybody to use and not free for anybody to steal, then I'd use the GPL.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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
There are restrictions on both -- in the US, freedom of speech is not an absolute. Under the GNU GPL, your freedom to share and modify comes with a proviso that you cannot deny recipients of distributed derivatives or verbatim copies the freedoms to share and modify the program.
Not at all. The FSF uses driving a car to help understand why restricting some freedoms are necessary to preserve others; I'll attempt to paraphrase it briefly: we cannot have all possible freedoms because some conflict. So we make choices and give up some freedoms to keep other freedoms. For instance, we are not allowed to drive anywhere we want at any speed we want. We are not allowed to drive on the sidewalks and we are not allowed to disobey the speed limit. Our freedom to do these things is curtailed because other freedoms are deemed more valuable -- the freedom to walk down the street in safety. The GNU project is about spreading software freedom to more people, so this requires a copyright license which doesn't allow anyone to strip away the freedoms of free software. Hence the GNU GPL (the license under which a lot of the GNU project's programs are distributed) has a strong copyleft.
The FSF argues, quite convincingly, that the ability to restrict what others can do with computer programs is a power not a freedom because "Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.".
I don't think any free software advocate would object to the use of the new BSD license. Such programs are a gift to everyone, and therein lies the rub. Free software advocates warn against using non-copyleft free software licenses (such as the new BSD license) under most circumstances because doing so has some noteworthy practical problems (like competing against a derivative of one's own code) and because it means treating businesses like charities.
Digital Citizen
You are missing the point, or possibly phrasing yours badly.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from selling derivative works. However, for every person you sell the compiled version of that code to, you must also make the source available, under the terms of the GPL. Which means, yes, they could redistribute your code, and you might theoretically make no more profit out of it after your first sale.
So, what you're actually complaining about is the GPL restricts your freedom to use other people's hard work to save you time and money, add a little bit of your own code, and then sell the result, keeping the source to yourself and giving nothing back to the people on whose shoulders you stood.
Yes, the GPL restricts the freedom of the few to be parasites, so that the many gain other freedoms. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face.
It's a pretty good trade-off, don't you think?
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
Why does this always come up? I in particular hate the extremists on both sides of the fence. Why must everything be GPL compatible? It is a rhetorical question.
I'll answer it anyway. The problem is that PHP is a programming language interpreter that is designed to integrate with database software. MySQL is database software, licensed under the GPL, that PHP can integrate with and which is the preferred database software of a very large percentage of PHP users.
The GPL incorporates a clause that states that if you link GPL code to any other code and distribute the result, you must license the other code under the GPL (or, equivalently, some license that contains no restrictions that the GPL doesn't). This applies even to dynamic linking.
PHP doesn't do this, so consequently, nobody can legally distribute a compiled copy of PHP with the MySQL module compiled in.
This is a big problem that must be solved one way or another. One side of the fence believes that PHP should drop all of their license restrictions that aren't in the GPL, the other believes that MySQL's client library (the portion of MySQL that needs to be linked with PHP) should be distributed under a license that doesn't contain the restriction I described above (e.g. the LGPL).
So far, there is no movement.