Hi, I did the review of php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo for Remi (CCed, but he is on the list anyway), and a licensing issue arose. Remi removed the files from the package so that we wouldn't delay the review, but now comes the time to fix the issue. The situation is as follows: 1. PHP_CompatInfo is BSD-licensed. 2. In its unit tests it has a copy of a file from the PHP source code, which is PHP-licensed. 3. This file is not used at run time by PHP_CompatInfo. It is not even run during the unit tests, only parsed, as it presents an interesting reproducer for a bug that had been reported to PHP_CompatInfo: http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=3657 (it is actually not even usable at all outside of the rest of the PHP tree) As such, what would be the license of the php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo package if Remi adds this file back: - "BSD and PHP"? - or simply "BSD", because parsing a file as a regression unit test is not considered the same way as running code? Also, I am personally a bit worried about those two paragraphs in the PHP license: 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@xxxxxxx. 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@xxxxxxx. You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" Is PHP_CompatInfo considered a derived work of PHP because it includes a file from the PHP source code in its unit tests? Should the upstream author be concerned about renaming his module, or asking for permission to the PHP group? If he gets a written permission, should it (most likely the email with full headers) be included in Remi's package? Or are we making a mountain out of a molehill and there is absolutely nothing to worry about with this module? Thanks in advance, PS: I voluntarily left aside the fact that the package is actually "BSD and MIT"-licensed because it bundles a copy of jQuery. I don't think it is relevant to this specific issue though, and it would only have made it more complex for me to explain it, which is why I decided it to leave it to a post-scriptum. -- Mathieu _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal