[HN Gopher] RFC: PHP license update
___________________________________________________________________
RFC: PHP license update
Author : josephwegner
Score : 76 points
Date : 2025-07-14 21:37 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wiki.php.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (wiki.php.net)
| unethical_ban wrote:
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Last time I heard about a non-news update that required no
| changes or recertification, we learned about 787MAX and MCAS.
| sjs382 wrote:
| 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"_
| jt2190 wrote:
| The background:
|
| https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update#background
| echelon wrote:
| 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.
| odo1242 wrote:
| 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"
|
| Edit: there may be more context than I thought
| echelon wrote:
| (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.
| jraph wrote:
| I don't think it does because trademark laws and individual
| rights already work like this by default.
| odo1242 wrote:
| Ah interesting
| samsk wrote:
| 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.
| zdragnar wrote:
| 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.
| LawnGnome wrote:
| 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.
| jraph wrote:
| 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)
| sjs382 wrote:
| Previously released versions are still available under the
| terms under which they were originally released.
| jraph wrote:
| Yep, that's my "however". For PHP, I haven't checked if
| they did add the new license to the already released
| versions, I would assume they didn't bother but in any
| case removing the former license for these versions would
| not have any effect, they are de facto available under
| that license "forever".
| jraph wrote:
| 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
| individual 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.
| eurleif wrote:
| 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.
| jraph wrote:
| 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 :-)
| cma wrote:
| 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 could be
| restricted.
| remram wrote:
| > 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.
| samsk wrote:
| Beautifull, everything regarding PHP licensing and its history in
| one place, no marketing or AI generated bs in sight - love it ;)
| EGreg wrote:
| AI generated bs doesn't add anything new. In fact bs has always
| existed! So there is nothing to see :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-14 23:00 UTC)