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

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#81

Post by gerdesj »

somat wrote: post #32
gerdesj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Beautiful aircraft there, very shiny.

We didn't have time to polish ours like that what with the enemy shooting at them all the time. Oh and most of them were made of wood and wishes! The Hurricane was a bit of a crossover from WWI to WW2, yet rather a lot of Brits and Poles (int al) flew them against the Luftwaffe, who had rather more modern ME109s etc. It must have been a bit of a pain to see your enemy deploy a cannon when you only have a .303.

There is absolutely no doubt that if the US hadn't rocked up, we would have been ... well I'm not sure what Europe might mean nowadays if things had been different.

Possibly, our most lethal aircraft was the Mosquito. It was made of wood and twin enginned. So it was light and very, very fast and could pack a real punch - a quad cannon or lots of machine guns in the nose and carry bombs too. Parts were made in furniture factories and garden sheds - it was totally mad and rather hard to target manufacturing.

I think that the Nazi regime gave two kills for downing a Mosquito because it was considered a bit of a handful.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#82

Post by rollcat »

throwaway9899p wrote: post #66
rollcat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also do not understand why anyone would drop the GPL because Stallman does not like their licensing. Stallman is said to be notoriously difficult to work with, and IMHO he's quite an extremist. He tried to veto emoji support in Emacs, because at the time it's only been supported on macOS. The reasonable recourse would've been add emoji support on the free platforms, but he seemingly can't see that far. So he's be…

To understand the value of his behaviour, you need to look at it from a broader strategic point of view, particularly the idea of setting the overtone window. Without Stallman, the moderate would be cast as the extremist. Stallman’s positive contribution to humanity cannot be overstated by any measure. Without him and the like of him, it is not improbable that the whole software industry would be like Apple ecosystem…

I do recognise and respect his past work. But he's come to a point where he'd rather hinder the progress of free software than help it. That's not extremist, that's short-sighted and spiteful.

That, and the uh, "it's not rape if..." comments. I wouldn't want anything to do with this guy following that, just no.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#83

Post by orchestrator »

znpy wrote: post #80
arccy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but also kind of sucks for users since you can't reuse the graph widgets elsewhere... which is why https://perses.dev/ is now a thing

looks like a poorer version grafana, with a worse license? Also grafana has "observability as code" since release 12: https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/whatsnew/whats-new-i... And it seems there used to be something similar from earlier as well: https://grafana.com/blog/2022/12/06/a-complete-guide-to-mana...

Funny Grafana added "as code" after Perses did it, look like small players can impact big players and they can be useful to the ecosystem :) I do not understand why you say it's a worse licence?

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#84

Post by wink »

userbinator wrote: post #33
sjs382 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NB: This was added "later" that is why tons of projects were grandfathered in, because they were already called phpMyAdmin, phpMyFAQ, etc. (IIRC at least)

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#85

Post by znpy »

orchestrator wrote: post #83
znpy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

looks like a poorer version grafana, with a worse license? Also grafana has "observability as code" since release 12: https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/whatsnew/whats-new-i... And it seems there used to be something similar from earlier as well: https://grafana.com/blog/2022/12/06/a-complete-guide-to-mana...

Funny Grafana added "as code" after Perses did it, look like small players can impact big players and they can be useful to the ecosystem :) I do not understand why you say it's a worse licence?

The second link is from like 2022, and I remember having code checked into git for dashboard in 2021 or so.

> I do not understand why you say it's a worse licence?

Apache license is inferior to the AGPL that Grafana is using. If the project is any good it's just a matter of time before Amazon or some other big company starts selling a fork of the codebase and draining development resources, as it happened with Redis, ElasticSearch and other companies.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#86

Post by eadmund »

arccy wrote: post #74
eadmund wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL. Plenty of businesses run AGPL software (e.g. Grafana, Mastodon or Mattermost). Fewer run AGPL software for external paying customers. As a developer, I care about the freedom of my users ; I don’t much care about the paranoia of a megacorp who wants to restrict the freedom of its customers.

but you don't care enough to let your users choose to pay some other business to host it for them

The AGPL allows that.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#87

Post by snvzz »

Y-bar wrote: post #58
snvzz wrote: post #53

Can't help but wonder why not the much simpler MIT.

Is https://opensource.org/license/mit really much simpler than https://opensource.org/license/BSD-3-clause to make a meaningful difference to you?

Yes.

The main issue with BSD is its proliferation of versions, incompatible with each other.

If you're comparing a specific version straight with MIT, this is not evident.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#88

Post by rollcat »

DmitryOlshansky wrote: post #67
rollcat wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't think up a reasonable case for a triple "naked" pointer. Nevermind performance, it's a level of implicit indirection that you simply can't reason about. Think of what a pointer is. Picture a struct; accessing a member is dereference + offset. It makes sense, you know there's a car, and the car has a steering wheel, and the steering wheel has a horn button. Simple. A struct with one field, that field…

Think of page tables this is essentially a table of tables of tables. I also was meh on triple pointers until I found this use case.

As colejohnson66 noted. I would use typedef table, typedef page, etc. A void* is a pointer to the void. A page table is a table of pages.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#89

Post by graemep »

rollcat wrote: post #63
graemep wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile, Richard Stallman, author of the GPL and founder of the FSF, had significant disagreements with the PHP project over their use of the GPL, so the PHP project discontinued the dual-licensing approach, removing the GPL license as an option The main link that cites is primarily about the MySQL license change to GPL and the impact on PHP licensing of tha. I also do not understand why anyone would drop the GPL…

> I also do not understand why anyone would drop the GPL because Stallman does not like their licensing. Stallman is said to be notoriously difficult to work with, and IMHO he's quite an extremist. He tried to veto emoji support in Emacs, because at the time it's only been supported on macOS. The reasonable recourse would've been add emoji support on the free platforms, but he seemingly can't see that far. So he's be…

> Stallman is said to be notoriously difficult to work with, and IMHO he's quite an extremist.

You do not have to work with him to use the GPL. You can use the GPL and ignore him completely. Its just a license.

Re: RFC: PHP license update

#90

Post by nerdyadventurer »

mbonnet wrote: post #78
burnt-resistor wrote: post #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 pro…

Plenty of big businesses will use AGPL software ... because you can dual license. AGPL lets you claim "open source" while still being able to pretty universally charge for the software's use via your commercial licensing option.

I'm confused can you please explain it bit more, are you talking about open core model?
Post reply on HN