[Savannah-cvs] [547] update links, remove obsolete data

[ineiev]

Revision: 547
          
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/?view=rev&root=administration&revision=547
Author:   ineiev
Date:     2023-02-06 07:37:51 -0500 (Mon, 06 Feb 2023)
Log Message:
-----------
update links, remove obsolete data

Modified Paths:
--------------
    trunk/sviki/PhpIssues.mdwn

Modified: trunk/sviki/PhpIssues.mdwn
===================================================================
--- trunk/sviki/PhpIssues.mdwn  2023-02-06 08:21:50 UTC (rev 546)
+++ trunk/sviki/PhpIssues.mdwn  2023-02-06 12:37:51 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -1,37 +1,34 @@
+# PHP License issues
+
 The PHP License has a couple clauses that are incompatible with the GNU
 GPL (versions 2 and 3) because they restrict usage of the name "PHP".
 Usually a name is protected using a trademark. When it is done in the
 license however, this introduces new requirements, and those
 requirements are not in the GNU GPL. So, despite the fact the PHP
-\_License\_ is a free software license, and a permissive one, it is not
+License is a free software license, and a permissive one, it is not
 compatible with the GNU GPL.
 
 This is not a problem for the PHP language itself, because the GNU GPL
-makes an exception for a project's underlying programming language (this
-exception allows you to distribute GPL'd applications that works for MS
-Windows, for example).
+makes an exception for the underlying programming language of covered
+software (this exception allows you to distribute GPL'd applications
+that work under MS Windows, for example).
 
 The real issue is when the PHP License, which is meant for the PHP
 programming language only, is used for other works. Many such works come
-from the PEAR libraries (<http://pear.php.net/>).
+from the [PEAR libraries](https://pear.php.net/>).
 
 In short: don't use PEAR packages under the PHP License with your GPL'd
 applications, or urge their maintainer to switch the modified BSD
 license, which is very similar except for the "trademark" clauses. mBSD
 is also compatible with the PHP License, so such code may be included in
-the PHP distribution if need be. It is worth noting that trying to
+the PHP distribution if needed. It is worth noting that trying to
 preserve the PHP name in a separate software package has no effect, so
 those clauses are pretty useless in the context of PEAR.
 
-Note: there has been some progress:
-<http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?8427#comment6>
+## Details
 
-* * * * *
-
-More details:
-
 Here are the relevant clauses
-(<http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt>):
+(<https://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt>):
 
     3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
     derived from this software without prior written permission. For
@@ -52,50 +49,14 @@
 
 However not everybody understood the point. Among them one of the PHP
 maintainers, who confused "derived work" and "aggregation". His answer
-was also quoted in the FAQ (without a link to the rest of the
-discussion). This is unfortunate for the PHP maintainer, because it was
-a pretty inaccurate statement:
-<http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.devs.php>
+was also [quoted in the
+FAQ](https://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.devs.php) (without a link to
+the rest of the discussion). This is unfortunate for the PHP
+maintainer, because it was a pretty inaccurate statement:
 
-Attemping to reason with the FAQ maintainer failed:
-<http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=9630>
+[Attemping to reason](https://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=9630) with
+the FAQ maintainer failed.
 
 Not all packages can be relicensed anyway, because there is no formal
 copyright assignment, so each and every author would have to be
 contacted - which is the main difficulty of the process.
-
-An interesting question at the time was to know whether the GNU GPL v3
-would be compatible, or not. After some talk with
-<mailto:licensing@fsf.org>, it appears that the
-latest draft isn't compatible with the PHP License, and is not moving in
-that direction. (\<\<Section 7(e) is meant to be read *very* literally
--- i.e., compatible clauses should say something like "This license does
-not grant you permission to use our trademarks." Anything that goes
-beyond that is almost certainly not acceptable because it won't account
-for things like fair use of the trademark, etc.\>\> --brett).
-
-There was another confusion because the FSF pages mentioned version 3.00
-of the PHPL, but there was a new 3.01 which fixed other distribution
-issues pointed out by Debian. The FSF pages are now updated to mention
-3.01 - and the changes have no effect on the compatibility issue
-(<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2006-12/msg00023.html>).
-
-So, the PHPL and the GNU GPL are not compatible and aren't going to be.
-We encourage PEAR developers to switch to the modified BSD and fix the
-PEAR FAQ.
-
-Answer sent by <mailto:licensing@gnu.org> (with no
-action from PEAR):
-<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.pear.devel/42589>
-
-Other reference: [gnu.org \#327077] PHP License and GPLv3 compatibility
-
-* * * * *
-
-Obsolete issue, don't confuse: at a point near the introduction of PHP4
-there was a problem with the PHP4 and Zend licenses, which lead several
-projects (including Savane) to stick to PHP3. This issue was solved long
-ago and must not be confused with the PEAR one above. More information
-at
-<http://osdir.com/ml/org.fsf.france.general/2002-09/msg00007.html>
-("PHP4 / PHP3" by Loic Dachary).