License inconsistencies and future

[belgattitude]

The original project seems to be dual licensed (MIT/LGPL) as stated on the sourceforge page:

The original CVS repo contains reference to the GPL (in the file COPYING) which I believe was let in the repo but seems not to reflect authors updated views... see the website ((LGPL/MIT) or comments in sources or the website:

/*
 * Copyright (C) 2003-2007 Jost Boekemeier
 *
 * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
 * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
 * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
 * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
 * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
 * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
 *
 * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
 * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
 * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
 * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL
 * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
 * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
 * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
 * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
 */

With an exception of the file Base64EncodingOutputBuffer.java which refers to Apache License 2.0.

Not a lawyer, but I guess being clear on that is important. So keeping a LICENSE.md with either the the LGPLv2 or MIT (keeping copyright to Jost Boekemeier) should be included in the project.

Anyone on this ?

PS: see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses

[belgattitude]

Following the issue... I've been looking to the mailing list archives and found a part of the answer, quoting Jost Boekmeier reply from 2007: *But I prefer to keep the .java files
under the MIT or Apache license See https://sourceforge.net/p/php-java-bridge/mailman/message/2945367/

Hi Andrè,

most of the *.java files are licensed under the MIT
license, except javax/script/* and 3 files in
php/java/bridge.

Sanka's open-source javax.script implementation is
licensed under the Apache License (unspecified
version).

Base64EncodingOutputBuffer.java was taken from the
Apache "Geronimo" application server, licensed under
Apache Software License 2.

CGIServlet.java was written by Martin Dengler and is
licensed under the Apache Software License
(unspecified version).

DynamicClassLoader.java was written by Kai Londenberg
and is licensed under the PHP license, which is
similar in spirit to the Apache Software License.


> php-java-bridge/examples/php+jsp/numberguess.jsp   

This file is obsolete.

> Base64EncodingOutputBuffer.java ASL 2.0

There are certainly other implementations. I think the
classpath project contains one licensed under the
lesser GPL. But I prefer to keep the *.java files
under the MIT or Apache license.

> CGIServlet.java ASL 1.1

We could ask Martin if he is willing to distribute it
under a different license.

> As noted at
> http://www.ohloh.net/projects/4800/factoids/122875
> ASL and GPL are incompatible.

I don't see how the lesser GPL is incompatible to the
Apache or PHP license. 


> Could they be moved to GPL?

The Base64 encoder could be replaced. But I don't know
if the other authors are willing to distribute their
code under a different license.



Regards,
Jost Boekemeier

Going for MIT ?

[belgattitude]

Even a more complete thread:

https://sourceforge.net/p/php-java-bridge/mailman/message/22988622/

Especially this one:

Hi Andre,

isn't it possible to exclude the examples libs from the distribution?

The only files necessary are the libraries:

JavaBridge.jar (MIT + PHP + Apache 2 License)
php-servlet.jar (MIT)
php-script.jar (MIT)

and the PHP files:

Java.inc (MIT)
JavaProxy.inc (MIT)

Regards,
Jost Boekemeier

So it looks good for me to MIT license the src (.java) code. The "./unsupported" directory containing various libs (Birt...) will be removed soon.

[belgattitude]

@cplerch Can I have your idea on this ?

[belgattitude]

MIT licenced where applicable

[belgattitude]

Reopened because of two files:

• launcher.c (GPL - Jost Boekemeier)
  launcher.c is licended under GPL

  Incompatible with MIT

  Possible solutions:

  • Ask the author for license change ? See License Problems #16
  • Remove and drop support for Windows FCGI ? (PHPFCGI is expected to be dropped anyway unless someone use it)

• Base64EncodingOutputBuffer.java (Apache License v2)
  Base64EncodingOutputBuffer.java

  Apache License v2

  Possible solutions:

  • check if compatible with MIT, might actually be (need help and review)
  • could be rewritten using https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Base64.html ?

[belgattitude]

launcher.c had been moved to legacy folder, see #16 ...

[belgattitude]

Note about Apache License V2 and the Base64EncodingOutputBuffer.java... Instead a dual licensing, it's possible to move to Apache V2 - http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a. Apache v2 can contain MIT (the opossite not true).