Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, is permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
>  [...] 
>   4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
>      may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
>      from group@php.net.  You may indicate that your software works in
>      conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
>      it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
>  
> Now, I hope nearly everyone defines the relevant sense of "may"
> as "have permission" or similar. So, it's permitted provided
> that {we don't have permission for some acts without permission
> from group@}. The {}d bit is probably always true unless someone
> else gives us permission (huh?).
> 
> If it's not intended as a statement (and I hope it is) then I think
> it's a case of Lawyer error: reboot Lawyer.
> 
> I hope the blanket permission email wouldn't be a problem.
> There's enough stuff with names like phpfoo which aren't all
> derived and aren't being chased, as far as I can tell.

Wouldn't that violate DFSG#8?  (License Must Not Be Specific to Debian)

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.   Paul Erdös

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.