php.net |  support |  documentation |  report a bug |  advanced search |  search howto |  statistics |  random bug |  login

go to bug id or search bugs for

Bug #57939 incorrect/incomplete license in package.xml
Submitted: 2007-12-02 20:19 UTC Modified: 2015-04-16 12:46 UTC
From: jakub at gentoo dot org Assigned: pajoye (profile)
Status: Closed Package: zip (PECL)
PHP Version: Irrelevant OS: Irrelevant
Private report: No CVE-ID: None
View Developer Edit
Welcome back! If you're the original bug submitter, here's where you can edit the bug or add additional notes.
If you forgot your password, you can retrieve your password here.
Password:
Status:
Package:
Bug Type:
Summary:
From: jakub at gentoo dot org
New email:
PHP Version: OS:

 

 [2007-12-02 20:19 UTC] jakub at gentoo dot org 
Description:
------------
package.xml states that this package is licensed under PHP license, however the whole bundled libzip code is apparently licensed under 3-clause BSD license.

Patches

Pull Requests

History

AllCommentsChangesGit/SVN commitsRelated reports
 [2007-12-03 09:21 UTC] pierre dot php at gmail dot com 
The policy or usage until now was to mention the extension only license. In this case, this is a minor issue as the PHPlicense is equivalent to the BSD License as long as the software is available under php.net

However, if it makes the distribution easier, would it help if I use BSD/PHP as license or add it in the comment?
 [2007-12-03 15:13 UTC] jakub at example dot com 
PHP license is totally not equivalent to BSD license, and please consult your lawyer in case you really want to claim something different. :=)

As I tried to explain (sadly without much success on Bug #12595) - package.xml should provide complete and accurate licensing info, otherwise the <license> tag makes no sense at all and becomes useless. And yeah, having a correct licensing info would help downstream distributions immensely, wading thru every source file to find out is really not much fun.

(I still find myself unable to comment on a bug I've myself submitted while being logger on, at least without using a fake email and struggling with your unreadable captchas, Pointers to whom should this issue be addressed are highly welcome).
 [2007-12-03 15:35 UTC] pierre dot php at gmail dot com 
"PHP license is totally not equivalent to BSD license, and please consult your lawyer in case you really want to claim something different. :=)"

I meant nearly equivalent when the software is distributed under php.net (if we bypass the PHP name restriction =)

But I agree with you anyway, as the sources are distributed within the same package, the two license should be bundled and a clear text available.

As the package.xml does not really support many licenses, I will let the extension license in the package.xml license tag and add a comment about the BSD licensed library. Is it ok for you?
 [2007-12-03 15:43 UTC] jakub at example dot com 
Well, beyond the fact that there's no valid reason why package.xml couldn't support more or less unlimited number of license tags... :) All I'm after here is not having to dig into every single file in the package to find out the correct licensing info, so yeah, definitely better than the current state. Thanks.
 [2007-12-03 15:45 UTC] pierre dot php at gmail dot com 
"Well, beyond the fact that there's no valid reason why package.xml couldn't support more or less unlimited number of license tags... :)"

Thanks to volunteer, patches are always welcome :-D

The fix will be online with the next release.
 [2015-04-16 12:46 UTC] cmb@php.net
-Status: Assigned +Status: Closed
 [2015-04-16 12:46 UTC] cmb@php.net 
Since version 1.12.2 there are proper LICENSE and LICENSE_libzip
files contained in the package.
 
PHP Copyright © 2001-2024 The PHP Group
All rights reserved. 		Last updated: Sat Dec 21 16:01:28 2024 UTC