Live data from Hacker News

RFC: PHP license update

wiki.php.net

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#31
post #30
post #29

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?

The wording to search for is, "You may also choose to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license".

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#32
post #26

Earlier 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…

Nothing special about that, here is the factory set trim tab on the p-47.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxWKOHPPNlM&t=298

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#33
post #8

Dang 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…

You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying “Foo for PHP” instead of calling it “PHP Foo” or “phpfoo”

Now "Windows Subsystem for Linux" makes even less sense than it already did.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#34
post #3

Earlier 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.

Don't worry, that was written with JavaScript.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#36

Can someone that understands the change please ELI5 for me? Is this changing the license for all of php?

What do you mean by all of php? This changes the license of the language. That is the interpreter, runtime, and standard library.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#37
post #29
post #27

I 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.

[deleted]

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#38
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us hope nobody is writing their aircraft stabilizer trim control software in PHP.

Don't worry, that was written with JavaScript.

Nawh, it's really written in JScript with ActiveX plugins served over http://.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#39
FYI in case anyone were wondering: Meta uses Hack, not PHP. (Hack's packaging, documentation, and availability suck because there's no performance review "impact" to making things better that no one inside Meta sees. Plus, there's job security in knowledge hoarding.)

Licensing: 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...

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#40
I remember studying the source code to the PHP Zend Engine 25 years ago, and seeing a triple C pointer for the first time (I think it was `zval***`?) I did a lot of PHP in the following years, including using PHP for a high school programming contest (but my submission was rejected because the PHP language and using it in a standalone CLI context in particular was unfamiliar to the staff). I appreciate what it enabled me to accomplish in that era.
Post reply on HN