Earlier quoted context omitted.
The PHP Group can do anything they want since they can release a new version of the license without contributor approval because of the "or later" clause.
That is not what the article says. It doesn't mention "or later" at all? And reading the full license text, I don't see "or later" there either?
RFC: PHP license update
31–40 of 91 posts
Re: RFC: PHP license update
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let us hope nobody is writing their aircraft stabilizer trim control software in PHP.
Well that is rather obvious. I doubt PHP has RTOS type guarantees built in. Funny you should mention stabilizer control (I don't think that is an aeronautic term). I recently visited the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight hanger at RAF Conningsby. It turns out that the Hurricane and Spitfire had unusual (by today's standards but normal for the times) ways of applying trim to control surfaces. One of them - you glue a…
Re: RFC: PHP license update
#33Dang if someone wants to become an expert in software licensing and modifications, this is a page to read. It's sold to us as non-news, which is good. No change for contributors, no change for end users, rights wise.
It seems like the only clauses being removed are those that protect PHP and Zend trademarks. Other than that, it's just unifying the two projects under a single license. -- Basically, these two clauses (first from PHP, second from Zend) are removed: 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@p…
Now "Windows Subsystem for Linux" makes even less sense than it already did.
Re: RFC: PHP license update
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time I heard about a non-news update that required no changes or recertification, we learned about 787MAX and MCAS.
Let us hope nobody is writing their aircraft stabilizer trim control software in PHP.
Re: RFC: PHP license update
#35Re: RFC: PHP license update
#36Can someone that understands the change please ELI5 for me? Is this changing the license for all of php?
Re: RFC: PHP license update
#37I suppose my concern with not getting permission from all contributors is that a bad faith contributor could make life hard. For those S signs with a stripe, or just out of spite. For better or worse, in systems like the US anyone can sue anyone for any reason and everyone is expected to carry their own costs, which is why everyone is so paranoid and covers their ass with three tanks worth of metal. Aside: "Meanwhile…
The PHP Group can do anything they want since they can release a new version of the license without contributor approval because of the "or later" clause.
Re: RFC: PHP license update
#38Re: RFC: PHP license update
#39Licensing: Meta and Google[1], and likely Microsoft, Apple, and most other megacorps explicitly forbid any use of AGPL software because it cannot be proven to be prevented from being invoked according to the vagueness of the "Remote Network Interaction" clause. So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL.
1. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...