Re: [RFC] Updating the PHP License
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 9:26 PM Ben Ramsey <ramsey@php.net> wrote:
> On 7/9/25 22:22, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> > Hello internals,
> >
> > I’m opening discussion on an RFC proposing that we relicense PHP under
> > the Modified BSD License (SPDX identifier: BSD-3-Clause), starting with
> > PHP 9.0. This change simplifies and modernizes our licensing,
> > addressing long-standing issues while preserving the rights of both
> > contributors and users. Below is a quick summary of what the RFC
> > proposes and what it means for developers.
> >
> > - Proposes that PHP 9.0 adopt the Modified BSD License (BSD-3-Clause),
> > replacing the current PHP and Zend Engine licenses.
> > - The Modified BSD License is OSI-approved, GPL-compatible, and widely
> > recognized in the open source community.
> > - Your rights as a developer—use, modification, distribution—remain
> > unchanged.
> > - Extensions and tools may adopt BSD-3-Clause in place of the outdated
> > PHP License.
> > - The update removes confusing legacy clauses tied to branding and
> > permissions.
> >
I read it through and it's really nice! +1 on this. I already started using
BSD License for some of the new stream changes - we are not required to use
PHP license and other licenses are already contained in it - mainly BSD
(e.g. FPM) and Apache.
FPM is actually 2-Clause BSD:
https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/php-8.5.0/sapi/fpm/LICENSE
. It might
make sense to cover it in the RFC and update it to 3-Clause as well maybe?
Also we should add headers with SPDX tag to its files where it's missing
completely - see
https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/php-8.5.0/sapi/fpm/fpm/fpm.c#L1
for
example. Assuming that it's fine to change it because the project is under
that license..?
>
> > I’ve spoken with all members of the PHP Group, and each has voiced their
> > approval of this proposal. The Perforce legal team has also informally
> > approved, and I will be working with them to get a formal letter of
> > approval soon.
> >
It would be good to get this stored somewhere so we have got proof of it.
It can be done privately but the point is that more people would have
access in case it is ever needed and you are not available.
It could be slightly clearer in the RFC that you have already all approvals
from PHP Group members - it just talks about how many of them might be
needed and then list them as approved without saying that it is all covered..
I guess the vote can start without the formal approval from Perforce but
the actual change should wait for it.
> > The RFC is available at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_license_update
> >
> > Discussion will remain open for at least six months to ensure all
> > interested parties have an opportunity to respond.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ben
> >
> > P.S. For legal questions or concerns, I’m working with Pamela Chestek
> > of Chestek Legal <https://www.chesteklegal.com> on behalf of the PHP
> > Group. You may be familiar with her work as chair of the license
> > committee for the Open Source Initiative.
>
> The only feedback I've received thus far regards the proposed PHP
> version. After thinking on it a bit, I agree with changing the proposed
> PHP version from 9.0 to the next version of PHP, whether that's 8.6 or
> 9.0. I've updated the RFC to reflect this.
>
>
You should just target just PHP 8.6 which is the automatic next version
unless there is an RFC that would change it to 9.0.
Kind regards,
Jakub
Thread (15 messages)