On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 03:18:36PM -0500, Ben Ramsey wrote:

Hi, all!

Over the years, the open source community, including Debian, has had a few lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the PHP license.[^1][^2][^3] The TL;DR sentiment of all these discussions amounts to: change the license to something well-

understood and less problematic.


This seems like a simplification that's long overdue: your methodology
and justification seem eminently sensible: go for it!

[Disclaimer: IANAL, like most others in this group, but would be very interested in anything that made licensing more understandable or simpler]

So, that’s what I’m proposing to do in a new RFC I’ve drafted for the PHP project: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update

I’ve not opened this up for discussion within the PHP project yet, since I’m still collecting feedback, and that’s why I’m sharing it here. I’ve put a lot of work into presenting what I think is a sound and well-reasoned argument for this

change, and I’m asking for feedback from this group regarding the method and theory I’m using to go about it.


See above: all looks good.

Thanks in advance!

Thanks to you for proposing this

Cheers,
Ben

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater
([email protected])

[^1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Flists.debian.org%2Fdebian-legal%2F+php
[^2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/604630/
[^3]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/php-license.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi, all!

Over the years, the open source community, including Debian, has had a few lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the PHP license.[^1][^2][^3] The TL;DR sentiment of all these discussions amounts to: change the license to something well-
understood and less problematic.

So, that’s what I’m proposing to do in a new RFC I’ve drafted for the PHP project: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update

I’ve not opened this up for discussion within the PHP project yet, since I’m still collecting feedback, and that’s why I’m sharing it here. I’ve put a lot of work into presenting what I think is a sound and well-reasoned argument for this
change, and I’m asking for feedback from this group regarding the method and theory I’m using to go about it.

Thanks in advance!

Cheers,
Ben


[^1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Flists.debian.org%2Fdebian-legal%2F+php
[^2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/604630/
[^3]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/php-license.html


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCZkkNHAAKCRCwLZeYnIwH GyKPAQCSOI+VaHPDf0AXiVT4CmwCj61SU6n4xJjkjsQZi5fJ5AD8CW37Kk2vYGNu Ssmk653XDquW6uOac/XEs/SNodKyw+4=
=FxxP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 18 May 2024 15:18:36 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:

Hi, all!

Hello Ben!

Over the years, the open source community, including Debian, has had
a few lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the PHP license.[^1][^2][^3] The TL;DR sentiment of all these discussions
amounts to: change the license to something well-understood and less problematic.

Indeed, I have personally voiced my disappointment with the PHP License
for a long time. See, for instance, my [analysis] of the PHP License,
version 3.01, and an additional [comment] about another issue.

[analysis]: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html> [comment]: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/02/msg00371.html>

And I have also attempted to persuade the PHP Group to switch to a well
known and widely adopted general purpose (DFSG-compliant) license.
I got in touch with the PHP Group back in 2016 and tried to convince
them to switch to the 3-clause BSD license, but my attempt was
unfortunately unsuccessful...

So, that’s what I’m proposing to do in a new RFC I’ve drafted for the PHP project: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update

Given what I said above, you may guess I am really happy about your RFC!
Thanks a lot for drafting it and for stewarding this proposal.

I’ve not opened this up for discussion within the PHP project yet,
since I’m still collecting feedback, and that’s why I’m sharing it here. I’ve put a lot of work into presenting what I think is a sound
and well-reasoned argument for this change, and I’m asking for
feedback from this group regarding the method and theory I’m using to
go about it.

Here's some feedback about version 0.3 of your RFC.

| The proposed changes for the PHP software repository will not affect
| the PHP Manual. The PHP Manual will remain licensed under the Creative
| Commons Attribution 3.0 License or later.

How unfortunate!
Creative Commons licenses are also controversial (although this one, CC-by-v3.0, is accepted by the Debian Project, I personally disagree).

Anyway, the general recommendation is to license the documentation
under the same legal terms as the documented program or library.
Hence, I would suggest to also switch the PHP Manual to the 3-clause
BSD license... this would be absolutely great (although it would
probably require to seek approval among its copyright holders).

| External extensions currently licensed under the PHP License may
| continue to use the PHP License. There is no need to change extension
| licenses.

I don't think so.

If the PHP Group decides to elect the 3-clause BSD license as the next
version (4.0) of the PHP License, then clause 5 of the PHP License version
3.01 will kick in and any piece of software currently licensed under
the terms of the PHP License version 3.01 will *instantly* be also
available under the terms of the 3-clause BSD license, at the
recipient's choice.

A similar reasoning should hold for the Zend Engine License, as well...

Thanks in advance!

You're welcome.
Thanks to you for sharing this draft document!

Cheers,
Ben

Bye! :-)

[^1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Flists.debian.org%2Fdebian-legal%2F+php
[^2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/604630/
[^3]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/php-license.html

--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmZKK9kACgkQPhwn4R9p v/7ErBAAq83ikSYkuNQYzdZeFZkTuw8BvzDaflWc8OUzj9S/28LQlyUhnN4ZiLKR zikWu+tXLbqGy3RcweNrO0zZa9nHpU7UN0cxUkQvGjqly24hwermVp687fZXU08l jSk3eHOobBcZLv4oxRTbkxyCPP/H/hU2y3PAiDohnv1BSJBA7/s0vgSios2FWjmP yUmjfbL+/uANHuq4gc8X93hhuZXrjZvE4/isjIfJG13p/IjesiSeizNVF/50zpu/ YgvzW/sfjf6EXOIMzYMJp9+0HgF76laDMFlGZzbQlb5L2M2dq7VtNNEz1ZO7XYDm lvAcI0sRo1UX+24f5054S2/u2/4mKWf6tNVWafOz2mQoPY8B1oIBEgRpOWucgD8b BCP8QEK1OgEl0nyxOrM+YvY9WDzVAJr3gFSKnm7K02i773tdp10Ikkwj7H/Jt1ri aHsKW2pdr6kB8sxEeeuusgz5LRdk7rt9YBpC2OozwwaZdhqdRJV0e2hOO5kQPjA1 GNHjdnmE48f1x4TxoyHckzzj/KbcRlwps/+UBdBAF/PyuLtVdc805TEumL1Db99G B0KcRSYnpyD4TSZXUH+zG9FVxrNprtF3R+H6ddbw7m4PYQ1GXAj0LolfydcKwmIQ 54Pt28f6CEsHyJFF8LuuJwf3JdGMQLVd

On May 19, 2024, at 11:42, Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote:

Here's some feedback about version 0.3 of your RFC.

The proposed changes for the PHP software repository will not affect
the PHP Manual. The PHP Manual will remain licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 License or later.

How unfortunate!
Creative Commons licenses are also controversial (although this one, CC-by-v3.0, is accepted by the Debian Project, I personally disagree).

Anyway, the general recommendation is to license the documentation
under the same legal terms as the documented program or library.
Hence, I would suggest to also switch the PHP Manual to the 3-clause
BSD license... this would be absolutely great (although it would
probably require to seek approval among its copyright holders).

The PHP manual is not distributed with the PHP source code, and it is managed by a separate team of volunteers. While related to the PHP source code, it can be thought of as a separate project, owned by a separate community. I called this out
specifically in the RFC to alleviate any concerns that the RFC oversteps this invisible boundary by applying itself more broadly.

External extensions currently licensed under the PHP License may
continue to use the PHP License. There is no need to change extension
licenses.

I don't think so.

If the PHP Group decides to elect the 3-clause BSD license as the next version (4.0) of the PHP License, then clause 5 of the PHP License version 3.01 will kick in and any piece of software currently licensed under
the terms of the PHP License version 3.01 will *instantly* be also
available under the terms of the 3-clause BSD license, at the
recipient's choice.

A similar reasoning should hold for the Zend Engine License, as well…

I want to be clear that this RFC does not exert any control over other projects that use the PHP License. This is important. PHP is not one, single unified project, despite how it might appear from the outside; it’s a bunch of small, independent
projects with no single unifying body that can claim control over any one of the projects. For this reason, the scope of the RFC is narrow.

One of my goals with the RFC is to get rid of the idea of a “PHP License,” so it deprecates the PHP License and *replaces* it with the BSD 3-Clause License. I don’t want there to be a “PHP License, version 4.0.” I think that will continue to
cause confusion in the community.

Is there a reading of clause 5 (specifically “You may also choose to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license published by the PHP Group.”) that would allow projects using the PHP License to switch to the BSD 3-
Clause License, even if a subsequent version 4.0 of the PHP License is not published?

Cheers,
Ben


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCZkpYzAAKCRCwLZeYnIwH G4dQAQCbjwVve5L+IBpA/jGHexHQAxcSILz8g2uK5tzoiXmUWAD/a6f/rXyJkM2O J5JL99xOC1i9Sg5SugHH/8siebYyuWg=
=XQZw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 19 May 2024 14:53:48 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:

On May 19, 2024, at 11:42, Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

If the PHP Group decides to elect the 3-clause BSD license as the next version (4.0) of the PHP License, then clause 5 of the PHP License version 3.01 will kick in and any piece of software currently licensed under
the terms of the PHP License version 3.01 will *instantly* be also available under the terms of the 3-clause BSD license, at the
recipient's choice.

A similar reasoning should hold for the Zend Engine License, as well…

I want to be clear that this RFC does not exert any control over other projects that use the PHP License.

I would not call it "control".

Nobody will be forced to stop copying/modifying/redistributing other
projects under the terms of the PHP License version 3.01 .

It's just a license-upgrade clause that can be triggered by the license steward, which decides to publish a new version of the license.

People who released their own projects under the terms of the PHP
License version 3.01 were (or should have been...) aware of the
existence of that license-upgrade clause: they decided to trust the PHP
Group as license steward.
They should not be surprised, if, at some point in time, that
license-upgrade clause is actually triggered.

[...]

One of my goals with the RFC is to get rid of the idea of a “PHP License,”

I agree with this goal.

so it deprecates the PHP License and *replaces* it with the
BSD 3-Clause License. I don’t want there to be a “PHP License,
version 4.0.” I think that will continue to cause confusion
in the community.

If the PHP Group decides to adopt the 3-clause BSD license as the new
PHP License, version 4.0, there will be no obligation, I think, to
mention the term "PHP License, version 4.0" in each PHP source code
file.
It will be possible to mention the 3-clause BSD license in each source
file and to state that PHP will be released under the terms of the
3-clause BSD license.

At the same time, somewhere on the php.net website, there will be a
page that explicitly says that the PHP Group has adopted the 3-clause
BSD license as the PHP License, version 4.0.

Is there a reading of clause 5 (specifically “You may also choose
to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version
of the license published by the PHP Group.”) that would allow
projects using the PHP License to switch to the BSD 3-Clause License,
even if a subsequent version 4.0 of the PHP License is not published?

First off, and I should have stated this more explicitly from the
beginning, IANAL, TINLA.

That being said, I personally don't see how the license-upgrade clause
could be triggered, without actually publishing a new version of the
license.
AFAICT, the strategy to "adopt" the 3-clause BSD license as the new
version 4.0 of the PHP License would trigger the license-upgrade
clause, while at the same time deprecating the use of the PHP License.
The web page on the php.net website could even explicitly say that the
PHP License is now deprecated and that the PHP Group has designated the 3-clause BSD license as its successor (PHP License, version 4.0).

In addition, triggering the license-upgrade mechanism would make it
much clearer that there's no need to ask for permission to all the
external contributors and that the license change can be performed just
with a vote within the PHP Group.

To a layman like me, the reasoning that no contributors, other than representatives of the PHP Group, are able to grant or assert clauses
4, 5, and 6, looks convincing. But I don't know whether it would
actually hold water in a court.
So, maybe, it's better, if the license-upgrade mechanism is also
triggered.

Or at least, this is how I personally see it.

Bye!


--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmZNEt8ACgkQPhwn4R9p v/4TRBAApmIdHPO52l8DVWtkK9eExDsYQACPfBr/YlQse/1XNrAhb9j2hdTyyUFA qeeYmU/8rd7t0YDjCjoei978cWpCIXv1PutdvW4QNCeU8Tz8UjMLi767TY1voUnh ajVeXrwoMrA2Lo540tbB7at6EH8CXBvU+hciDV+VYeFbVu1thhqTEkzlxZm0N7/U NjnSL43yCitQeCH2X8tCKHwm44k09K5yeJhfpiKOjdXHw2+dm5C/oezFod9zTymt 5z26LDS2jt3+iWQpybmYMKZ/vaflWVAAH3JGMldQymdxbzg+uOiQSqzl2MzkcNf8 YUGz6/a50BEDT9aVOx6rtc3Hv3FmASbXrv4ZrYpr8zzIOhRz5R6RPR8p8i46B32l tiLptBXFWQxoBPO9vCZMgw4Zev4P+nWsMUmWCK98Amlg6+wbYtJT9YfFestYPHL/ a+73CH5cllnPsjRXxFbrUoEuGJnqQW1UzMN3ZaRf/lZMjzvB/jXMGA39vovITLd0 VulWyLxRJP9ORKnCXNmydSGjH/OHX/b1Aq8r7MiYfNTwNIPzBRwAPk1//jfHTLpv BKLLaoDo7OsORmr9yJFqqYz1r7WyjMV6dheTTx2E0Hp0x0t9u3bXwhc+YG3jCQDZ KtktcBHXQ3nHIX2I1W7iSEvnmfFjakfO

On May 21, 2024, at 11:49, Richard Laager <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-05-19 14:53, Ben Ramsey wrote:

One of my goals with the RFC is to get rid of the idea of a “PHP License,” so it deprecates the PHP License and *replaces* it with the BSD 3-Clause License. I don’t want there to be a “PHP License, version 4.0.” I think that will continue to

cause confusion in the community.

You (the copyright holders) could do both. That is, the PHP 4.0 license would be the same wording (other than the name) as BSD 3-Clause. That way, you trigger the "any subsequent version" clause, but then you also subsequently relicense PHP itself

under BSD 3-Clause directly. This would indicate a clear intention that the PHP License is deprecated, while still getting the "any subsequent version" benefits for existing software.

Of course, this assumes that you WANT to trigger that option for third-party projects, which you may or may not. (I think you should want that, but it's not my code, so my opinion doesn't really matter.)

Honestly, I hadn’t considered this option before mailing this list, so I’m glad I mailed this list. :-)

After thinking it over, I do think we want to trigger this option for third-party projects, so that they have a clear path to upgrade the BSD 3-Clause license.

Cheers,
Ben


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCZk1DRAAKCRCwLZeYnIwH G5KPAP9Zf/isppoyO+OH6U1xRJTb7oxnSeIdzqSrnKdCHUdrnQD/bQjcfKM7FLun 5ulmDrxsasWUwDWSfy/balr7GNOkUVY=
=prcR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 21, 2024, at 19:58, Ben Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:

This is something that didn’t cross my mind while I was putting together the RFC, so I’m glad I posted to this list.

Thank you for the suggestions! I’ll update the RFC and will reply here when I’ve made the changes.

I’ve updated the RFC according to your suggestions. You may find a diff of the changes here:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716433712&rev2%5B1%5D=1716437291&difftype=sidebyside

Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes.

Cheers,
Ben





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCZk7CWQAKCRCwLZeYnIwH G+lhAQCNk6p+2mEoIjuZ6+EAf53FAjZRVUQkQfxb6AXwLtqXdgD8CGOwrUEIV2DN GdTuzJbnkFGQy9dfB2phGHQ0UjUZSZg=
=RD1b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 May 2024 23:13:13 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:

[...]

I’ve updated the RFC according to your suggestions.

Good! :-)
Thanks for taking the time to do so.

You may find a diff of the changes here:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716433712&rev2%5B1%5D=1716437291&difftype=sidebyside

Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes.

After a short review, they look OK to me.

The only thing that I would emphasize more is: the PHP License, version
4.0 should not just have the text identical to the 3-clause BSD
license, it should *be* the 3-clause BSD license. In other words, the
PHP Group would not merely publish a new license with a text identical
to the text of another license: the PHP Group would *designate*[^NOTE]
the 3-clause BSD license as the new version of the PHP License (i.e.:
version 4.0).

[^NOTE]: or *elect*, or *adopt*, the most suitable word should be
chosen by an English native speaker (which I am not) with legal
training (which I do not have)...

I think that, this way, clause 5 of the PHP License, version 3.01,
would be triggered, but there would be no need to explicitly mention
"PHP License, version 4.0" in the source code of a project that decides
to upgrade its license (from PHP License, version 3.01 to its
successor, the 3-clause BSD license).
The reason would that "PHP License, version 4.0" would become an alias
of "3-clause BSD license"...

Similarly for the Zend License, of course.

This is how I see it, but, clearly, it has to be checked with someone
more knowledgeable than me about the legal aspects.


Bye.

--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmZPjYIACgkQPhwn4R9p v/7xGhAAjLXbXmLLfMxzz0HuVu02OyayfBtaWAOxo8GwSZYg3dRkmp9Y6C/RecsW Uff8PGyV2ZwwbMjN5O6bnlNi2wYgMmfiYwdkYQ/tIXBY8snv+5f07so6aSR2CK2c GUowwa7zemHOwiXRDiLtFA0dvXv5tSbrIK8MB0HDlugpmxMZIDkmWiWKeH7rb9XE bAM4p3dggPfE0o0nY970o6lVL9wOby5kGSIz0V0ZEKEKOaKxfsVcZw4MmU/Sm9zL 3xjTEzqbzCHinEj2IQxdo4bjTLiCiDeIQbPZ6+guH9O0AC9k0SOfjxu+9lcd0aQe QudTPaVVGf0sLhe/fPtcQOil2VWKhGiqf++Q/wvVbFDRKVCbX2I3gezNQv6qc2TV SZUhB8pMFCh4LmdqKpKjjfEy8rPTiy4BcHD8+ykxHDWuCQq9lTHV/DrpNUiKUToa XGnySyCfYM8pzxWaUPgkweqh12X30hMUdPicSRQ1vnUpjKG35b6qfGbyXFAjVIKq zmIY0vfuTUKwcJgtJeePzbBE3pru/YZIe5e6wWE4oZg+vedb850tt30F/vOX9z7d WFLPUh8+VGwL5p+6owqRyOnZZoa88fcrhwaFSpZCO+KOWNBUvRrF5CGR2LccMyBD CZ+kS0wkjE9dWYMMm4SrojDJmw9o1XrY

On May 23, 2024, at 13:40, Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2024 23:13:13 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:

[...]

I’ve updated the RFC according to your suggestions.

Good! :-)
Thanks for taking the time to do so.

You may find a diff of the changes here:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716433712&rev2%5B1%5D=1716437291&difftype=sidebyside

Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes.

After a short review, they look OK to me.

The only thing that I would emphasize more is: the PHP License, version
4.0 should not just have the text identical to the 3-clause BSD
license, it should *be* the 3-clause BSD license. In other words, the
PHP Group would not merely publish a new license with a text identical
to the text of another license: the PHP Group would *designate*[^NOTE]
the 3-clause BSD license as the new version of the PHP License (i.e.:
version 4.0).

[^NOTE]: or *elect*, or *adopt*, the most suitable word should be
chosen by an English native speaker (which I am not) with legal
training (which I do not have)...

I think that, this way, clause 5 of the PHP License, version 3.01,
would be triggered, but there would be no need to explicitly mention
"PHP License, version 4.0" in the source code of a project that decides
to upgrade its license (from PHP License, version 3.01 to its
successor, the 3-clause BSD license).
The reason would that "PHP License, version 4.0" would become an alias
of "3-clause BSD license"...

Similarly for the Zend License, of course.

This is how I see it, but, clearly, it has to be checked with someone
more knowledgeable than me about the legal aspects.

Again, great suggestions, Francesco. Many thanks!

I’ve made a few small changes that make it clear that the PHP License, version 4, and Zend Engine License, version 3, both adopt the 3-clause BSD License.

Changes here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716438337&rev2%5B1%5D=1716527050&difftype=sidebyside

Cheers,
Ben


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCZlAhiwAKCRCwLZeYnIwH G7yYAQCLw2pL13fsND8UjNy3EvMEzxfJGQrOGz+qAtfnmVEoHQD7BKvEZjNnrvwW uaKAvXbodi6jHWDLNEaq0s6Guj5jXqM=
=EbVN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 May 2024 00:11:39 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:

On May 23, 2024, at 13:40, Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2024 23:13:13 -0500 Ben Ramsey wrote:

[...]

I’ve updated the RFC according to your suggestions.

Good! :-)
Thanks for taking the time to do so.

You may find a diff of the changes here:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716433712&rev2%5B1%5D=1716437291&difftype=sidebyside

Please let me know if you have any feedback on these changes.

After a short review, they look OK to me.

The only thing that I would emphasize more is: the PHP License, version
4.0 should not just have the text identical to the 3-clause BSD
license, it should *be* the 3-clause BSD license. In other words, the
PHP Group would not merely publish a new license with a text identical
to the text of another license: the PHP Group would *designate*[^NOTE]
the 3-clause BSD license as the new version of the PHP License (i.e.: version 4.0).

[^NOTE]: or *elect*, or *adopt*, the most suitable word should be
chosen by an English native speaker (which I am not) with legal
training (which I do not have)...

I think that, this way, clause 5 of the PHP License, version 3.01,
would be triggered, but there would be no need to explicitly mention
"PHP License, version 4.0" in the source code of a project that decides
to upgrade its license (from PHP License, version 3.01 to its
successor, the 3-clause BSD license).
The reason would that "PHP License, version 4.0" would become an alias
of "3-clause BSD license"...

Similarly for the Zend License, of course.

This is how I see it, but, clearly, it has to be checked with someone
more knowledgeable than me about the legal aspects.

Again, great suggestions, Francesco. Many thanks!

You are welcome! :-)

I’ve made a few small changes that make it clear that the PHP License, version 4, and Zend Engine License, version 3, both adopt the 3-clause BSD License.

Changes here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1716438337&rev2%5B1%5D=1716527050&difftype=sidebyside

Yeah, I think this is an improvement.


Some minor nitpicks (once again, by a non-native speaker, so they could
be wrong...): it's not the PHP License, version 4.0, which adopts the
3-clause BSD license; it's the PHP Group which adopts the 3-clause BSD
license as the new version (4.0) of the PHP License.
If you agree with this reasoning, then I would change the following
sentences:

- This proposal addresses a longstanding issue within the open source
- community by publishing new versions of the PHP License and the Zend
- Engine License. The PHP License, version 4, and Zend Engine License,
- version 3, will adopt the BSD 3-Clause License.

into:

+ This proposal addresses a longstanding issue within the open source
+ community by publishing new versions of the PHP License and the Zend
+ Engine License. The BSD 3-Clause License is adopted as The PHP
+ License, version 4, and as The Zend Engine License, version 3.

and:

- Publish the PHP License, version 4, and Zend Engine License, version
- 3, both adopting the BSD 3-Clause License, and deprecate the PHP
- License and Zend Engine License, as proposed in the Proposal section?

into:

+ Publish the PHP License, version 4, and Zend Engine License, version
+ 3, by adopting the BSD 3-Clause License as the new version of both,
+ and deprecate the PHP License and Zend Engine License, as proposed in
+ the Proposal section?


I hope this helps.
Bye!


--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmZR/c0ACgkQPhwn4R9p v/59Fw//fcnC7JQwOuW1uj4wWcn3r+TLZTWfpLmHejTfhXgGAL7KY9PxY4/0Gvpd MH8Zft2cRBwX9T63SsinBK4E4MJtJNLF12vGCWST158/jA/fXSY8lYnB3lnd01Lv MB8JwgxiXZvxtTMqsxiDVTMYVA/gnXQ+X78O6FdjVA3qetYOPEpYuebTmChSMMG4 oQbWjJXF4tV6kyRPh16gpvR+cQHsnCnMY9Qe/t89YppXxctnGIxxqXyGWqg49KCp u7hMq+h9DrKlYI7YYxVuxNgwP7jxJR1NZkV/4724TwwpQ8whBgb+F9AKkRNozFwM iys5fZFeWvbBNHREH/C01gP2ekpM0uQeaSs/yO6hvB7bZWP+4nmChy8wsLqb8Ivz GNxIWfD2mEN0vSx1oSzbSmxlbpEaT/ZUhAJAxGurH6+ap6z+i0YfLdiGJuOY7LIH wsn413GZWBoYCYJRyOTgZIZ+fgz7ssDOUOJuOK6iiX715b8mVFjwxyXWzZRslhtS TWKFQV/pd3WG48jP5ojjdP7CWquCOzASQTkX+RWpp04xptfqXg9YD52QlxlKqohb LF1Lc9pQErK6/RIMesUv5Lll8yYxjyW9Y2phvThQiLUyqRkZCiJpuA3SAGOI2FYS VbfkNKV/ghQ7zY3P7dblDgVX6i5+FXJi

On May 25, 2024, at 10:03, Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote:

Some minor nitpicks (once again, by a non-native speaker, so they could
be wrong...): it's not the PHP License, version 4.0, which adopts the 3-clause BSD license; it's the PHP Group which adopts the 3-clause BSD license as the new version (4.0) of the PHP License.

I think it could be worded either way in English and still make sense, but I’ve made the changes to make clear your distinction that it’s not the documents themselves adopting the BSD 3-Clause License but the organizations who maintain the documents.
:-)

Cheers,
Ben



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCZlIKPgAKCRCwLZeYnIwH GzfjAPsHnv4k8xsLkQhssd8CjOhLHkIEiBP2zWfGTX+865jRPQEAi3KM6lvZoh/P d8tviY43pJeE0TIDZ2AHhjbtK3eOWZ0=
=e8CN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)