3 ms·
It's not that the license is self-contradictory, it's that the license text (as written here: http://php.net/license/3_01.txt http://php.net/license/3_01.txt) i
by TallGuyShort 12y ago
It's not that the license is self-contradictory, it's that the license text (as written here: http://php.net/license/3_01.txt http://php.net/license/3_01.txt) implies that the software is distributed only by the PHP Group, and is therefore not usable without modification by anyone outside the PHP Group. The solution is simple: modify the text of your project's license to have similar clauses to the PHP license, but not mention the PHP Group, OR re-license your software under the BSD license or another, similar license.
- icebraining 12y agoThe solution is simple: modify the text of your project's license to have similar clauses to the PHP license, but not mention the PHP Group That's not so simple; as a work produced by someone, a legal document may be subject to copyright. So you might need a license to the license to modify and reuse it :) http://www.adamsdrafting.com/the-contract-drafter-as-copyright-violator/ http://www.adamsdrafting.com/the-contract-drafter-as-copyrig...
- TheLoneWolfling 12y agoHmm... Is it possible to "self-host" a license? That is, is it possible to have a license licensed under itself?
- icebraining 12y agoI don't know; and I'm not sure if anyone knows. As far as I know, there's no jurisprudence about the copyright of copyright licenses.
- tedunangst 12y agoThe GPL is itself copyright, but its licence doesn't permit modification. One example.
- icebraining 12y agoBut was that tested in court?
- dfox 12y agoIt's possible, but this is exactly the line pf reasoning that leads to self-contradicting an non-sencial licencing terms.