On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:59:27 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:08:09 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > (FYI, Don wasn't claiming either of these. He was explaining how > > > the restriction being called non-free could be tied to the DFSG; > > > that's not the same as claiming it's non-free *due* to that.) > > > > Don's statement seemed (at least to me) in agreement with my claims. > > > > Don, could you clarify? > > Apologies in advance, should I find out I misunderstood your words. > > I just provided the basis for your claim; I personally haven't decided > myself whether or not this clause is DFSG Free or not. It is quite > certainly on the border.[1] Ah, OK. I thought you were more decided than you actually are: I apologize. > > That being said, I see no reason why any upstream would ever need such > a phrase in their license. To generate debian-legal headscratching? ;-) > > For the two cases which we care about: > > 1: In the case of works that are not PHP or obviously derived works of > PHP, such a clause is most likely non-free, as it has nothing to do > with requiring a namechange at all. That's one of the points I'm trying to gain consensus on. You seem to agree with me. > > 2: In the case of PHP itself, derived works that would be confusingly > similar to PHP should be enjoined by trademark law, not copyright. > [Not surprisingly, it is easily conceivable that Debian itself is > falling afoul of this clause by distributing a derivative works of PHP > which contain 'php'[2].] Most probably trademark law is more suitable for that, yes. [...] > 1: On cases like this, I'd strongly suggest working with upstream to > change the license while keeping the work in question in the archive. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. I think the license is non-free: as a consequence upstream should be persuaded to change it. In the meanwhile, the work can be kept in the archive for some time. > > 2: Although, I suppose the nitpickers out there will notice that the > licence specifies 'PHP', not 'php'... ;-) Bingo!!! I, as a nitpicker, have already noticed that! :) -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpVPIWyogLUe.pgp
Description: PGP signature