shiflett wrote:But, from my experience, GPL is the problem with compatibility and not the other way around.
There are certainly two sides (at least) to every story, and you can take that position.
However, the PHP License has caused
licensing problems for Debian,
for GPL programmers (for years now),
MySQL, the list goes on.
Now, each of those are generally involving the GPL, but the point is, the incompatibility is widespread, well-known, well-discussed, and Zend chose to ignore every single one of those issues that have occurred over the last
four years.
Even if you ignore all of that, making the claim that it's the GPL that has the problem ignores the legal realities of the licenses themselves. The PHP License is actually MORE restrictive in many ways than the GPL. The PHP License requires you to either include php itself in your app (!?), or *lie* and state that it does:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
"This product includes PHP, freely available from
<
http://www.php.net/>".
Tell me again how the GPL is the one that is broken?
Take a serious look at statements like those before insulting the GPL community, which has done its homework, and is listening to serious legal issues and comments to develop a new version. Compare and contrast to Zend embracing a broken license after years of causing problems for every GPL developer that wants to use a PEAR package.
Now, in the case of the Zend Framework License, the new section 6 is considerably more reasonable.
However, section 3 puts trademark restrictions on the enduser (that can be enforced through other means, and don't belong in a copyright license). That makes it legally, and fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.
Its not the GPL that has the problem - its the ZFL that does.