[License-review] Request for Legacy Approval of PHP License 3.01

Ben Ramsey ben at benramsey.com
Fri Mar 6 22:38:38 UTC 2020

> On Mar 6, 2020, at 16:21, Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
> On 3/5/20 7:15 AM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>>> Would such a parametrization be sensible, or would that be be unsuitable, given that this is a non-reusable license anyway?
>> Since the license has been in use for over 14 years with no changes, I don’t think parametrization of the license at this point is useful. There are no plans or discussions for any future changes to the text of the license.
> We should still use placeholders because otherwise 3.0.2 when the urls
> change and 3.0.3 when they change again will need to be approved by us,
> which is dumb.

I’m having trouble finding any examples of licenses with placeholders similar to what we’re discussing here.

Apache 2.0 and the GPL both provide placeholders in their “how to apply the license to your work” sections, but these are for the purpose of allowing others to use the license for their software, not for the purpose of updating the text of the license in future revisions. They also do not provide placeholders for their URLs, so if their URLs change, then they would need to have those changes approved by the OSI.

As already discussed, the PHP License 3.01 falls under the “non-reusable licenses” category, and providing placeholders to allow others to apply the license to their work seems counter to the “non-reusable” nature of the license.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200306/8978e38e/attachment.asc>

More information about the License-review mailing list