FYI in case anyone were wondering: Meta uses Hack, not PHP. (Hack's packaging, documentation, and availability suck because there's no performance review "impact" to making things better that no one inside Meta sees. Plus, there's job security in knowledge hoarding.)
Licensing: Meta and Google[1], and likely Microsoft, Apple, and most other megacorps explicitly forbid any use of AGPL software because it cannot be proven to be prevented from being invoked according to the vagueness of the "Remote Network Interaction" clause. So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL.
> So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL.
Not "anyone who runs a business" but "any business that uses your software to provide a proprietary network service".
That is the whole point of the AGPL!
Google's reasoning in your link is pretty clear that the problem is that they are a provider of network services. Most non tech businesses wold be completely unaffected by these issues and have no reason to care.
The problem is that the language is vague enough and untested enough a lot of places, including non-technical ones, can be wary of being the test case.
That is the only way for anyone that would like to make a living out of open source.
Other than that, younger generations are getting why the old models from shareware and trial demos, source available have made a comeback under apparently new models.
I remember studying the source code to the PHP Zend Engine 25 years ago, and seeing a triple C pointer for the first time (I think it was `zval***`?) I did a lot of PHP in the following years, including using PHP for a high school programming contest (but my submission was rejected because the PHP language and using it in a standalone CLI context in particular was unfamiliar to the staff). I appreciate what it enabled me to accomplish in that era.
I suppose my concern with not getting permission from all contributors is that a bad faith contributor could make life hard. For those S signs with a stripe, or just out of spite. For better or worse, in systems like the US anyone can sue anyone for any reason and everyone is expected to carry their own costs, which is why everyone is so paranoid and covers their ass with three tanks worth of metal.
Aside:
"Meanwhile, Richard Stallman, author of the GPL and founder of the FSF, had significant disagreements with the PHP project over their use of the GPL, so the PHP project discontinued the dual-licensing approach, removing the GPL license as an option"
> Meanwhile, Richard Stallman, author of the GPL and founder of the FSF, had significant disagreements with the PHP project over their use of the GPL, so the PHP project discontinued the dual-licensing approach, removing the GPL license as an option
The main link that cites is primarily about the MySQL license change to GPL and the impact on PHP licensing of tha. I also do not understand why anyone would drop the GPL because Stallman does not like their licensing.
The PHP Group can do anything they want since they can release a new version of the license without contributor approval because of the "or later" clause.
I assume this is the reason they're characterising this as "PHP License V4 will have identical wording to BSD-3" rather than "We will switch license to BSD-3".
It amounts to the same thing, but the former framing means they're covered by the "or later".
Well that is rather obvious. I doubt PHP has RTOS type guarantees built in.
Funny you should mention stabilizer control (I don't think that is an aeronautic term). I recently visited the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight hanger at RAF Conningsby. It turns out that the Hurricane and Spitfire had unusual (by today's standards but normal for the times) ways of applying trim to control surfaces.
One of them - you glue a piece of string on top of an aileron and on the other you smack it with a hammer to bend it (that must be the Spitfire) and then you test it out and keep fettling until the job is done.
Well, that's roll sorted out, I'm not sure what trim for the other two axes (pitch, yaw) involves. Probably knicker elastic.
it'll be alright as long as you're not receiving the trim updates as part of a search query using parse_str, otherwise, you might be susceptible to script kiddies.
It seems like the only clauses being removed are those that protect PHP and Zend trademarks. Other than that, it's just unifying the two projects under a single license.
--
Basically, these two clauses (first from PHP, second from Zend) are removed:
The name “PHP” must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact group@php.net.
The names “Zend” and “Zend Engine” must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior permission from Zend Technologies Ltd. For written permission, please contact license@zend.com.
And replaced with:
Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
--
Then the following three terms (4-6) are removed from PHP:
4. Products derived from this software may not be called “PHP”, nor may “PHP” appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying “Foo for PHP” instead of calling it “PHP Foo” or “phpfoo”
5. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once covered code has been published under a particular version of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license published by the PHP Group. No one other than the PHP Group has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: “This product includes PHP software, freely available from http://www.php.net/software/”.
--
And the following three terms (4-6) are removed from Zend:
4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once covered code has been published under a particular version of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
5. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes the Zend Engine, freely available at http://www.zend.com"
6. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: "The Zend Engine is freely available at http://www.zend.com"
This is exactly the reason that "Windows Subsystem for Linux" never made sense: the correct preposition would've been "including". Other suggestions: the verb phrase "consisting of"; the adverb "to wit" ("Windows Subsystem, to wit: Linux" has a nice ring to it); whatever part of speech "which is" is.
This is basically the same that was discussed over a decade ago, back then we used to called it the "LOLPHP License". I spilled my coffee when i saw this is actually now being re-re-implemented.
The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI".
> The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01,
Yes, it does. Modified BSD Clause 3 (copied below).
> 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
I know I'm being pedantic, but this is a narrowing of rights.
> Do We Require Permission From All Contributors? The short answer is, “No.”
I think that they can get away with this change since the original license doesn't preclude a narrowing of rights on derivatives.
It would be interesting if a contributor protested the additional burden and headache of having to deal with a torrent of snail mail asking for endorsement.
> I know I'm being pedantic, but this is a narrowing of rights.
No, it's not. Explicitly stating which rights you don't grant is not more narrow than implicitly not granting them, it's just clearer. Copyrights and trademark rights are different.
> is not more narrow than implicitly not granting them
Implicitly not granted? You mean, not mentioned at all? Imagine a world in which the modified BSD license exists in a vacuum. This license restricts how a product can be endorsed/promoted as per the clause. Granted, additional restrictions are removed in regard to "PHP" et al.
I don't know what you are talking about. Many licenses don't mention trademark issues at all, that doesn't mean they grant you the right to use the trademark.
"Not mentioned at all" does not mean you can do it. Licenses do not restrict, they permit, from a default of "you may not use my stuff".
The license text could also say "you may not break into my house". That would not make it a "narrowing of rights", and that doesn't mean other licenses implicitly grant you the right to break into the software author's house if you use their software.
I think the point the previous poster is trying to make is that:
> This license restricts how a product can be endorsed/promoted as per the clause.
...is technically not true for licenses, because they do not _restrict_ usage, rather they _permit_ usage. The usage is, by default, always restricted by automatic copyright and authorship laws, so any license (including the GPL) is not a restriction but a permission, since it has _granted_ permissions that were implicitly not there.
So if you change your license in a way where it appears more restrictions have been added, but those restrictions were already implicit because they were not even covered or taken into account in your original license, no new restrictions were added, your "grant" was just made easier to understand.
This clause doesn't allow people to write you, it prevents them from doing stuff without written permission.
And that's the default. Trademark laws and laws that protect individuals already work like this. I'm not even sure this clause is strictly necessary in the BSD license.
I assume they've carefully evaluated this change with a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the relevant laws, but I'm quite skeptical that trademark and publicity rights align with a broad prohibition on using the names of copyright holders to "endorse or promote" without "specific prior written permission". That phrasing could be interpreted to prohibit, for example, giving an interview about your derived work, and making the factual statement: "It's based on software called Foo, which was written by a guy named John Smith." No endorsement is implied, but you are using John Smith's name in an interview which is perhaps intended for promotional purposes.
Even if this restriction does align with US law, I will be flabbergasted if it aligns with the laws of every other country as well.
I'm quite convinced this clause says you cannot make it seem like the original authors endorse your derivative product, the BSD license is so widespread I would assume if your interpretation was correct we would have seen many issues by now, but IANAL too. I do hope you are wrong :-)
The way the clause was in there gives them more rights than a trademark; if their term becomes genericized they could still enforce it on people distributing the code. And other uses of the mark that could normally be allowed could be restricted.
I mean, PHP license clause 3 & 4 seems to say this already:
3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without prior written permission. For
written permission, please contact group@php.net.
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
(I've edited my comment slightly, but not in a way that changes the context of your response.)
PHP License Clause 3 & 4 are about protecting PHP branding. Modified BSD Clause 3 is about using the software author's name or likeness as endorsement. For example, it limits putting antirez's face and name on our managed Redis product without obtaining his permission.
IANAL, but the new license applies only to new PHP versions, changing it backwards would require approvals.
If you don't contribute under new license, you should be not affected.
The new license covers and applies to all the code, even code that was written before the change.
You can totally change the license of already released code, if the change is compatible with the precious license or if you have permission from all the contributors whose code is still present in significant amount. (However, you can't prevent people from using the released code under the former license)
So what do you mean by "you can totally change the license of already released code"? If the license only applies to version 9 and forward, then in any practical sense the license has not been changed for "released code".
I believe only the rights holders need to approve of the retroactive changes, and so they really only need Perforce (presumably the rights holder as the current owner of the former Zend Technologies) to agree.
Very pedantically, because PHP doesn't require copyright assignment, it would be (almost certainly) impossible to retroactively change the licence on older versions.
However, since the PHP and Zend licences both permit the user to use PHP under the terms of whatever licence version was applied to that PHP version or any later version, the point is essentially moot, since a user can choose to use the new version of the PHP/Zend licence once published, which will give them the same rights.
FYI in case anyone were wondering: Meta uses Hack, not PHP. (Hack's packaging, documentation, and availability suck because there's no performance review "impact" to making things better that no one inside Meta sees. Plus, there's job security in knowledge hoarding.)
Licensing: Meta and Google[1], and likely Microsoft, Apple, and most other megacorps explicitly forbid any use of AGPL software because it cannot be proven to be prevented from being invoked according to the vagueness of the "Remote Network Interaction" clause. So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL.
1. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
> So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL.
Not "anyone who runs a business" but "any business that uses your software to provide a proprietary network service".
That is the whole point of the AGPL!
Google's reasoning in your link is pretty clear that the problem is that they are a provider of network services. Most non tech businesses wold be completely unaffected by these issues and have no reason to care.
The problem is that the language is vague enough and untested enough a lot of places, including non-technical ones, can be wary of being the test case.
In other words, if you're an open source startup and want to avoid being AWS'd, choose dual AGPL + commercial (with IP transfer CLAs).
That is the only way for anyone that would like to make a living out of open source.
Other than that, younger generations are getting why the old models from shareware and trial demos, source available have made a comeback under apparently new models.
Which is what Grafana essentially did, and it's going great (as a company and as a suite of products, their stuff is incredibly good).
Meta _does_ have some PHP apps. They have a collection of sites running WordPress.
That's not running on the main site. 99.99999% of it is Hack.
Beautifull, everything regarding PHP licensing and its history in one place, no marketing or AI generated bs in sight - love it ;)
AI generated bs doesn’t add anything new. In fact bs has always existed! So there is nothing to see :)
I remember studying the source code to the PHP Zend Engine 25 years ago, and seeing a triple C pointer for the first time (I think it was `zval***`?) I did a lot of PHP in the following years, including using PHP for a high school programming contest (but my submission was rejected because the PHP language and using it in a standalone CLI context in particular was unfamiliar to the staff). I appreciate what it enabled me to accomplish in that era.
That's hilarious considering I did my senior project in Perl.
I suppose my concern with not getting permission from all contributors is that a bad faith contributor could make life hard. For those S signs with a stripe, or just out of spite. For better or worse, in systems like the US anyone can sue anyone for any reason and everyone is expected to carry their own costs, which is why everyone is so paranoid and covers their ass with three tanks worth of metal.
Aside:
"Meanwhile, Richard Stallman, author of the GPL and founder of the FSF, had significant disagreements with the PHP project over their use of the GPL, so the PHP project discontinued the dual-licensing approach, removing the GPL license as an option"
Haha, such classic Stallman.
> Meanwhile, Richard Stallman, author of the GPL and founder of the FSF, had significant disagreements with the PHP project over their use of the GPL, so the PHP project discontinued the dual-licensing approach, removing the GPL license as an option
The main link that cites is primarily about the MySQL license change to GPL and the impact on PHP licensing of tha. I also do not understand why anyone would drop the GPL because Stallman does not like their licensing.
The PHP Group can do anything they want since they can release a new version of the license without contributor approval because of the "or later" clause.
I assume this is the reason they're characterising this as "PHP License V4 will have identical wording to BSD-3" rather than "We will switch license to BSD-3".
It amounts to the same thing, but the former framing means they're covered by the "or later".
That is not what the article says. It doesn't mention "or later" at all?
And reading the full license text, I don't see "or later" there either?
The wording to search for is, "You may also choose to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license".
The background:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update#background
Can't help but wonder why not the much simpler MIT.
Dang if someone wants to become an expert in software licensing and modifications, this is a page to read.
It's sold to us as non-news, which is good. No change for contributors, no change for end users, rights wise.
Last time I heard about a non-news update that required no changes or recertification, we learned about 787MAX and MCAS.
Let us hope nobody is writing their aircraft stabilizer trim control software in PHP.
Well that is rather obvious. I doubt PHP has RTOS type guarantees built in.
Funny you should mention stabilizer control (I don't think that is an aeronautic term). I recently visited the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight hanger at RAF Conningsby. It turns out that the Hurricane and Spitfire had unusual (by today's standards but normal for the times) ways of applying trim to control surfaces.
One of them - you glue a piece of string on top of an aileron and on the other you smack it with a hammer to bend it (that must be the Spitfire) and then you test it out and keep fettling until the job is done.
Well, that's roll sorted out, I'm not sure what trim for the other two axes (pitch, yaw) involves. Probably knicker elastic.
Nothing special about that, here is the factory set trim tab on the p-47.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxWKOHPPNlM&t=298
it'll be alright as long as you're not receiving the trim updates as part of a search query using parse_str, otherwise, you might be susceptible to script kiddies.
Don't worry, that was written with JavaScript.
Nawh, it's really written in JScript with ActiveX plugins served over http://.
737* :)
It seems like the only clauses being removed are those that protect PHP and Zend trademarks. Other than that, it's just unifying the two projects under a single license.
--
Basically, these two clauses (first from PHP, second from Zend) are removed:
The name “PHP” must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact group@php.net.
The names “Zend” and “Zend Engine” must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior permission from Zend Technologies Ltd. For written permission, please contact license@zend.com.
And replaced with:
Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
--
Then the following three terms (4-6) are removed from PHP:
4. Products derived from this software may not be called “PHP”, nor may “PHP” appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying “Foo for PHP” instead of calling it “PHP Foo” or “phpfoo”
5. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once covered code has been published under a particular version of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license published by the PHP Group. No one other than the PHP Group has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: “This product includes PHP software, freely available from http://www.php.net/software/”.
--
And the following three terms (4-6) are removed from Zend:
4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once covered code has been published under a particular version of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
5. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes the Zend Engine, freely available at http://www.zend.com"
6. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: "The Zend Engine is freely available at http://www.zend.com"
You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying “Foo for PHP” instead of calling it “PHP Foo” or “phpfoo”
Now "Windows Subsystem for Linux" makes even less sense than it already did.
This is exactly the reason that "Windows Subsystem for Linux" never made sense: the correct preposition would've been "including". Other suggestions: the verb phrase "consisting of"; the adverb "to wit" ("Windows Subsystem, to wit: Linux" has a nice ring to it); whatever part of speech "which is" is.
This is basically the same that was discussed over a decade ago, back then we used to called it the "LOLPHP License". I spilled my coffee when i saw this is actually now being re-re-implemented.
What a shitshow.
Can someone that understands the change please ELI5 for me? Is this changing the license for all of php?
What do you mean by all of php? This changes the license of the language. That is the interpreter, runtime, and standard library.
I find these sorts of legal changes fascinating.
The fact that the OSI didn't approve of the PHP License until pressured shows the wayward nature of their "stewardship" of "open source". As does their wonky and rights-eroding definition of "open source AI".
> The proposed license does not reduce any user rights or add any new restrictions on the use of code previously licensed under the PHP License, version 3.01,
Yes, it does. Modified BSD Clause 3 (copied below).
> 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
I know I'm being pedantic, but this is a narrowing of rights.
> Do We Require Permission From All Contributors? The short answer is, “No.”
I think that they can get away with this change since the original license doesn't preclude a narrowing of rights on derivatives.
It would be interesting if a contributor protested the additional burden and headache of having to deal with a torrent of snail mail asking for endorsement.
> I know I'm being pedantic, but this is a narrowing of rights.
No, it's not. Explicitly stating which rights you don't grant is not more narrow than implicitly not granting them, it's just clearer. Copyrights and trademark rights are different.
> is not more narrow than implicitly not granting them
Implicitly not granted? You mean, not mentioned at all? Imagine a world in which the modified BSD license exists in a vacuum. This license restricts how a product can be endorsed/promoted as per the clause. Granted, additional restrictions are removed in regard to "PHP" et al.
The shape is different, not just clearer.
I don't know what you are talking about. Many licenses don't mention trademark issues at all, that doesn't mean they grant you the right to use the trademark.
"Not mentioned at all" does not mean you can do it. Licenses do not restrict, they permit, from a default of "you may not use my stuff".
The license text could also say "you may not break into my house". That would not make it a "narrowing of rights", and that doesn't mean other licenses implicitly grant you the right to break into the software author's house if you use their software.
I think the point the previous poster is trying to make is that:
> This license restricts how a product can be endorsed/promoted as per the clause.
...is technically not true for licenses, because they do not _restrict_ usage, rather they _permit_ usage. The usage is, by default, always restricted by automatic copyright and authorship laws, so any license (including the GPL) is not a restriction but a permission, since it has _granted_ permissions that were implicitly not there.
So if you change your license in a way where it appears more restrictions have been added, but those restrictions were already implicit because they were not even covered or taken into account in your original license, no new restrictions were added, your "grant" was just made easier to understand.
This clause doesn't allow people to write you, it prevents them from doing stuff without written permission.
And that's the default. Trademark laws and laws that protect individuals already work like this. I'm not even sure this clause is strictly necessary in the BSD license.
I assume they've carefully evaluated this change with a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the relevant laws, but I'm quite skeptical that trademark and publicity rights align with a broad prohibition on using the names of copyright holders to "endorse or promote" without "specific prior written permission". That phrasing could be interpreted to prohibit, for example, giving an interview about your derived work, and making the factual statement: "It's based on software called Foo, which was written by a guy named John Smith." No endorsement is implied, but you are using John Smith's name in an interview which is perhaps intended for promotional purposes.
Even if this restriction does align with US law, I will be flabbergasted if it aligns with the laws of every other country as well.
I'm quite convinced this clause says you cannot make it seem like the original authors endorse your derivative product, the BSD license is so widespread I would assume if your interpretation was correct we would have seen many issues by now, but IANAL too. I do hope you are wrong :-)
The way the clause was in there gives them more rights than a trademark; if their term becomes genericized they could still enforce it on people distributing the code. And other uses of the mark that could normally be allowed could be restricted.
I mean, PHP license clause 3 & 4 seems to say this already:
Edit: there may be more context than I thought(I've edited my comment slightly, but not in a way that changes the context of your response.)
PHP License Clause 3 & 4 are about protecting PHP branding. Modified BSD Clause 3 is about using the software author's name or likeness as endorsement. For example, it limits putting antirez's face and name on our managed Redis product without obtaining his permission.
I don't think it does because trademark laws and individual rights already work like this by default.
Ah interesting
IANAL, but the new license applies only to new PHP versions, changing it backwards would require approvals. If you don't contribute under new license, you should be not affected.
The new license covers and applies to all the code, even code that was written before the change.
You can totally change the license of already released code, if the change is compatible with the precious license or if you have permission from all the contributors whose code is still present in significant amount. (However, you can't prevent people from using the released code under the former license)
Previously released versions are still available under the terms under which they were originally released.
Yep, that's my "however". For PHP, the new license will apply to version 9 and later if the proposal is adopted.
So what do you mean by "you can totally change the license of already released code"? If the license only applies to version 9 and forward, then in any practical sense the license has not been changed for "released code".
I believe only the rights holders need to approve of the retroactive changes, and so they really only need Perforce (presumably the rights holder as the current owner of the former Zend Technologies) to agree.
Very pedantically, because PHP doesn't require copyright assignment, it would be (almost certainly) impossible to retroactively change the licence on older versions.
However, since the PHP and Zend licences both permit the user to use PHP under the terms of whatever licence version was applied to that PHP version or any later version, the point is essentially moot, since a user can choose to use the new version of the PHP/Zend licence once published, which will give them the same rights.