Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?
Brought to you by:
bs_php,
nigelswinson
Menu
▾
▴
Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?
|
From: Francis F. <fra...@vi...> - 2002-06-28 02:44:46
|
################resume############ 1)I'm not a lawyer, by reading this you can not in anyway sue me for any reason that caused you or other's any kind of prejudice 2)NO, LGPL is not compatible with MPL 3) Modification of Php.XPath can be kept private 4) We sould maybe re-licence Php.XPath If you want to understand all of it, read on my bad english ################resume############ Well, I didn't read the license completly, well I did 1 or 2 year's ago, but if I look in my book: Open SOurces VOices from the Open SOurce Revolution. You can get see the book online at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html and get the page that I talk at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html just go down until you get the table comparing all license. I can see that if Php.XPath is MPL, it can be mixed with closed source (non-free software) and a bad thing is that modification can be made and kept by who did it. So if I take Php.XPath I can make some modification and keep it for me, it can be keep private. The MPL was made by Netscape for the Mozilla project, so that Netscape can take the Mozilla browser made some modification to it, to leverage the browser and to redistribute it without giving the source back to Mozilla. ( Mozilla will be relicensed as MPL and GPL, with both of them ) By loking at the mozilla.org site and at the gnu.org site I found that: The Mozilla Public License (MPL). This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason. However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license. LGPL is based on GPL, so it is not compatible as read on Mozilla.org: After the NPL and MPL were created, the Free Software Foundation stated that the NPL and MPL were "incompatible" with the GPL. "Incompatibility" in this context means that (in the opinion of the FSF) developers who combined code licensed under the NPL (or MPL) with code licensed under the GPL and distributed the resulting work could not do such distribution without violating the terms of the GPL. Given that the LGPL contains similar language to the GPL, if the MPL were in fact incompatible in this way with the GPL, it would arguably be incompatible with the LGPL as well. If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from it, it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done. As of source of not, the only way to compile PHP is to have the Zend compiler, which is really costly, so if you don't compile it, they will get the source. I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is one of an ordinary user ... By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the software and keep the change they made, you should relicence the software to somethings else. I hope it help. Nigel Swinson wrote: >>Dear Nigel, >> >>I have downloaded and am studying version 3.0 for use in my application. >>I looked at the Mozilla Public License but cannot make any common sense >>of it. >>Can you help me? The legalese is incomprehensible to me. Even if you >>think you understand something like that, you have no idea what a >>judge's interpretation might be anyway.... >> >>What I would like to know is: if I use Php.XPath as part of a larger >>application that I am writing, am I free to distribute or sell my >>application with or without including Php.XPath? > > > I am equally uninspired by legal issues, to the point that I cant be > bothered researching this for you and certainly beyond the point where I > would think of taking you to court if you "get it wrong". :o) > > Perhaps someone else on the development team, or someone else on the mail > list can help out though? > > My gut feeling is that yes you can sell Php.XPath, but you must distribute > the source with it, along with copyleft statement. How you sell a php > product without distributing the source I'll never know, but the copyright > statement must stay. > > Nigel > > =========================== > For the most recent version of Php.XPath, and an archive of this list visit: > http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpxpath > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Phpxpath-users mailing list > Php...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users > -- Francis Fillion, BAA SI Broadcasting live from his linux box. And the maintainer of http://www.windplanet.com |
