Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RFC: PHP license update

wiki.php.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#11

Post by jraph »

echelon wrote: post #5

I find these sorts of legal changes fascinating. The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI". > The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01, Yes…

This clause doesn't allow people to write you, it prevents them from doing stuff without written permission.

And that's the default. Trademark laws and laws that protect individuals already work like this. I'm not even sure this clause is strictly necessary in the BSD license.

I assume they've carefully evaluated this change with a lawyer.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#12

Post by zdragnar »

samsk wrote: post #10
echelon wrote: post #5

I find these sorts of legal changes fascinating. The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI". > The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01, Yes…

IANAL, but the new license applies only to new PHP versions, changing it backwards would require approvals. If you don't contribute under new license, you should be not affected.

I believe only the rights holders need to approve of the retroactive changes, and so they really only need Perforce (presumably the rights holder as the current owner of the former Zend Technologies) to agree.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#13

Post by jraph »

echelon wrote: post #9
odo1242 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, PHP license clause 3 & 4 seems to say this already: 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact group@php.net. 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@php.net. You may indicate that your…

(I've edited my comment slightly, but not in a way that changes the context of your response.) PHP License Clause 3 & 4 are about protecting PHP branding. Modified BSD Clause 3 is about using the software author's name or likeness as endorsement. For example, it limits putting antirez's face and name on our managed Redis product without obtaining his permission.

I don't think it does because trademark laws and individual rights already work like this by default.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#14

Post by LawnGnome »

zdragnar wrote: post #12
samsk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but the new license applies only to new PHP versions, changing it backwards would require approvals. If you don't contribute under new license, you should be not affected.

I believe only the rights holders need to approve of the retroactive changes, and so they really only need Perforce (presumably the rights holder as the current owner of the former Zend Technologies) to agree.

Very pedantically, because PHP doesn't require copyright assignment, it would be (almost certainly) impossible to retroactively change the licence on older versions.

However, since the PHP and Zend licences both permit the user to use PHP under the terms of whatever licence version was applied to that PHP version or any later version, the point is essentially moot, since a user can choose to use the new version of the PHP/Zend licence once published, which will give them the same rights.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#15

Post by EGreg »

samsk wrote: post #6

Beautifull, everything regarding PHP licensing and its history in one place, no marketing or AI generated bs in sight - love it ;)

AI generated bs doesn’t add anything new. In fact bs has always existed! So there is nothing to see :)

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#16

Post by jraph »

samsk wrote: post #10
echelon wrote: post #5

I find these sorts of legal changes fascinating. The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI". > The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01, Yes…

IANAL, but the new license applies only to new PHP versions, changing it backwards would require approvals. If you don't contribute under new license, you should be not affected.

The new license covers and applies to all the code, even code that was written before the change.

You can totally change the license of already released code, if the change is compatible with the precious license or if you have permission from all the contributors whose code is still present in significant amount. (However, you can't prevent people from using the released code under the former license)

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#17

Post by odo1242 »

echelon wrote: post #9
odo1242 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, PHP license clause 3 & 4 seems to say this already: 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact group@php.net. 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@php.net. You may indicate that your…

(I've edited my comment slightly, but not in a way that changes the context of your response.) PHP License Clause 3 & 4 are about protecting PHP branding. Modified BSD Clause 3 is about using the software author's name or likeness as endorsement. For example, it limits putting antirez's face and name on our managed Redis product without obtaining his permission.

Ah interesting

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#18

Post by eurleif »

jraph wrote: post #11
echelon wrote: post #5

I find these sorts of legal changes fascinating. The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI". > The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01, Yes…

This clause doesn't allow people to write you, it prevents them from doing stuff without written permission. And that's the default. Trademark laws and laws that protect individuals already work like this. I'm not even sure this clause is strictly necessary in the BSD license. I assume they've carefully evaluated this change with a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the relevant laws, but I'm quite skeptical that trademark and publicity rights align with a broad prohibition on using the names of copyright holders to "endorse or promote" without "specific prior written permission". That phrasing could be interpreted to prohibit, for example, giving an interview about your derived work, and making the factual statement: "It's based on software called Foo, which was written by a guy named John Smith." No endorsement is implied, but you are using John Smith's name in an interview which is perhaps intended for promotional purposes.

Even if this restriction does align with US law, I will be flabbergasted if it aligns with the laws of every other country as well.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#19

Post by remram »

echelon wrote: post #5

I find these sorts of legal changes fascinating. The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI". > The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01, Yes…

> I know I'm being pedantic, but this is a narrowing of rights.

No, it's not. Explicitly stating which rights you don't grant is not more narrow than implicitly not granting them, it's just clearer. Copyrights and trademark rights are different.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#20

Post by cma »

jraph wrote: post #11
echelon wrote: post #5

I find these sorts of legal changes fascinating. The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI". > The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01, Yes…

This clause doesn't allow people to write you, it prevents them from doing stuff without written permission. And that's the default. Trademark laws and laws that protect individuals already work like this. I'm not even sure this clause is strictly necessary in the BSD license. I assume they've carefully evaluated this change with a lawyer.

The way the clause was in there gives them more rights than a trademark; if their term becomes genericized they could still enforce it on people distributing the code. And other uses of the mark that could normally be allowed could be restricted.
Post reply on HN