At 01:45 29/06/99 , Jim Winstead wrote:
There is no reason we would need to contact anyone to release a version
of PHP under the PHP License only. Everyone already has that right
(minus the BC math junk), and we are no different in that respect than
anyone else. (It's forking the code, but when we fork the code,
the dual-licensed version will simply die unless someone else picks it
up and continues on with it.)
I doubt this would stand in court (not that I expect it to have to, but still). If someone contributed code to PHP knowing it can be distributed under the GPL, and it can no longer be distributed under the GPL, it's changing the license. It doesn't really matter whether there was a second license it can be distributed under. It's analogous to a license that has two clauses, that you have to comply with either (a) or (b). We're essentially removing (a) - that's obviously changing the license.
Changing the PHP License in any way for a future release will require
the permission of all of the various code contributors. This could be
avoided in the future by adding the "or any future version of the
license" clause similar to what the GPL and NPL have. There shouldn't
be any need to define serious contributer.
Then you have the obvious problem of who's allowed to change the license, and whether he/they need the approval of everybody who contributed even the slightest piece of code (otherwise, why would Joe Shmoe change the license and release version 2000 of it?)
The standard 'I'm not a lawyer' disclaimer applies here just as well. I just realize very well that since we're not lawyers, we rarely see the whole picture in these messed up issues.
Zeev
--
Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> http://www.zend.com/
For a PGP public key, finger bourbon@netvision.net.il