On 28 Jun 1999, Jim Winstead wrote:
> The "written permission" clause is there because some people were
> concerned about people just packaging up PHP and selling it. (This was
> decided at about the time someone had done just that, thus adding to the
> concerns). Otherwise the PHP License is nearly identical to the
> Apache/BSD license. We've never denied permission to anybody. That
> clause certainly isn't there so we can make money. The PHP License
> exists because the GPL is viral, and we want people like the Stronghold
> folks to be able to bundle PHP with their server.
Maybe, given the growth of PHP since that license was written, and the
unlikelyness of someone trying to pull that stunt again, there should be
some consideration to removing that clause?
My attitude toward licenses is that there should be as few of them
floating around as possible. It's too hard for people to keep track of the
differences among them. Also, as we see here, other people just want to
feel comfortable with the spirit of your license.
If PHP moved to say, the Apache license, that might be a "good thing."
First, everyone, except for maybe rms :), feels at ease with the Apache
license, so they're cool with it. Most people run PHP with Web servers;
Apache being the Open Source Web server of choice, it's kinda nice to know
that if you're cool with Apache, you're cool with PHP. Plus, as you say
above, the current version is almost identical to the Apache license.
(Which I'm taking your word for, since it's been a while since I read
either.)
If it's important to stay with the current previsions, maybe the license
could be almost in the form of a diff. (i.e. "It's the Apache license +
the following paragraph.")
Maybe this could be a change considered along with the release of PHP4,
since there's already plans to split off the GPL code into another
package?
-adam
--
/ adam maccabee trachtenberg | visit college life online \
\ adam@student.net | http://www.student.com /