[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       php-internals
Subject:    Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PDO 2: Request for Comments
From:       chris# <chris# () codewarehouse ! NET>
Date:       2008-01-29 18:33:13
Message-ID: d0b8240ac5688d47a79a0253153d4c31 () hitOmeter ! NET
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:17:40 +0100 (CET), Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> Hei,
> 
> I've been deliberating looking at all the comments regarding PDO2 and the
> CLA proposal to allow for some more thinking-before-writing. My first
> impression was not much unlike Pierre's though. Now that I have spend some
> time thinking about it, I am replying with my thoughts and comments. They
> are my *personal* thoughts on this and can not be attributed to any other
> entity.
> 
> First of all, it's good that some attention is give to PDO. PDO is useful,
> but
> also has many rough edges in the ways that it behaves different depending
> on different database connection libraries. This is highly annoying, even
> more
> because it's not really documented. Anything to improve this is good, and
> support from the vendors themselves definitely would help here. However,
> love to PDO should be given in a similar way as to the rest of PHP. I
> disagree,
> but understand, how PDO2 got started. It's not that much an issue to start
> with a small group to talk about certain new things, but it should have
> been
> possible for other people to join as well.
> 
> The outcome of this process is however what went into the wrong hole for
> me.
> From the start with Wez' commit to create a closed off module in *our* CVS
> repository I was skeptical. I've now seen the proposed
> CLA and PDO license and it seems my scepticism is justified. PHP has been
> an Open Source project for more than 10 years now, and I've spend a good
> deal
> of my spare time in the last 6 years on it. Never was there any need for a
> CLA
> although there were some minor IP related issues which got cleared up
> pretty
> quickly. It happens, and a CLA can *not* prevent this. An example here is
> that
> when one of the CLA-signed PHP developers talks at a conference with
> another
> person (that did not sign the CLA) on some PDO related issues, the ideas
> that
> this other person brings up can not be used as it's not own contribution.
> This
> effectively stops discussing relevant technical issues with peers at
> conferences for example. I know the CLA only talks about actually stuff
> that
> makes it in (into the spec or code), but can you really rightfully claim
> it
> your contribution if somebody else suggested it orally? Another issue here
> is
> that we can't really have a public bug tracker for PDO where people can
> put in
> patches. The PDO developers (that signed a CLA) can not even look for
> issues as
> they might be tainted with evil patches. This practise is in spirit
> against
> Open Source as we've been practising it in the PHP project.
> 
> For now this CLA is only covering PDO, but once this precedence is set, it
> can easily expand over the rest of PHP as "it works fine for PDO". Another
> expansion could easily turn a CLA into an NDA if you really make it look
> black.
> 
> Another issue I see with the CLA is the patent clause. Where I live
> (Norway)
> and where I've lived (The Netherlands, Italy) there are no software
> patents.
> The practise does simply not exist, and for good reasons. Thoughts are
> free, and should stay free. It's absurd that trivial patents such as
> amazon's
> "One click patent" are even *considered* to be granted. Because software
> patents are such a moronic thing I would never agree to sign anything that
> mentions that I "warrant that the submission of My Contribution will
> include
> accurate details of" "related patents" "of which I am aware off". Although
> the FAQ writes that we're not expected to do a patent search, nothing is
> done to prevent the litigation against individual contributers in case
> their contribution *was* to be covered by a US software patent. This CLA
> does not give this protection to the contributors that is mentioned in the
> FAQ.
> It merely serves the interests of the big vendors which have 10.000s of
> patents themselves. In order to do real good for Open Source, those
> patents
> should be provided to the Open Source community free-of-charge. When IBM,
> MS
> and other big ones (Sun, here is your chance) provide their patents
> portfolio
> to Open Source projects other companies will think twice before trying to
> sue
> PHP (or their contributors) for patent infringement.
> 
> Besides some of the more legal issues, I've also concerns about developer
> interest in maintaining, or contributing, towards CLA covered bits of
> code.
> For eZ's projects we also have a CLA. There have been a few occasions
> where
> this CLA prevented people from contributing code. This is not what Open
> Source
> is about. It's not only about being able to use code freely, it's just as
> much
> as making it easy to contribute back. A CLA hinders this process, even
> more
> in the cases where simple updates (API changes in PHP f.e., proto updates,
> operating system support improvements) can not be done by every PHP
> contributor
> because they didn't sign a CLA. I do know that there were not many
> contributors
> actually looking at PDO before, but I think that has no influence on
> whether
> a CLA is good or not. I think the lack of developers is more because of
> the
> mostly (undocumented) complex workings of the extension and its drivers.
> 
> Besides this, the PHP project is *our* project, and if the big vendors
> want to
> make money through the PHP project by making PHP connect to their products
> better, I don't see why they should not follow *our* rules instead of
> dictating
> their own.  There have been plenty of occasions as well where code (tests,
> fixes) were already contributed by either IBM and Oracle anyway.
> 
> I also have an issue with the license for the PDO parts. Although the FAQ
> writes correctly that there are some parts of PHP that do not fall under
> the
> PHP License, all of those parts have not been written *for* the PHP
> project
> specifically - they were always adopted from other sources. PDO is part
> of the PHP project, and should therefore not come with its own license
> that
> has to be OSI approved again.
> 
> I hope that I didn't forget anything in this longish email, but it should
> be
> clear that I'm totally against having a CLA on any part of PHP.
> 
> regards,
> Derick

Thank you for those thoughtful words.

+1

> --
> Derick Rethans
> http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Service provided by hitOmeter.NET internet messaging!
.

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]