Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:09:56 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] dk64nl$vs3$1@sea.gmane.org>
- References: <43546841.2060207@debian.org> <20051019012312.68bd6b4e.frx@winstonsmith.info> <djfio7$bsd$1@sea.gmane.org> <20051023220554.53dc59bf.frx@winstonsmith.info> <djplcl$55l$1@sea.gmane.org> <20051028000546.3b1cb5a6.frx@winstonsmith.info>
Francesco Poli wrote:
> OK, let's concentrate on version 3.0 of the PHP license, then.
>
> The only issue that I see in PHP license version 3.0 *as applied to PHP
> itself* is:
>
> | 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"
>
> This starts as a name-change clause, but then goes beyond and forbids an
> entire class of names for derived works (any name having "PHP" as a
> substring, minus some exceptions).
> This is overreaching, IMO, and makes the clause non-free.
Worse, it's contradictory.
>You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by
>saying "Foo for PHP"
PHP appears in the name "Foo for PHP".
It would also be pretty nasty if any of the various php-blah-blah packages
turned out to be derived from PHP, because they'd all be in violation.
> If other debian-legal contributors agree that this clause makes PHP
> non-free, I think the PHP group should be contacted and (politely) asked
> for a license change.
>
> The best solution would be persuading the PHP group to state that they
> adopt the 2-clause BSD license[1] as version 4.0 of the PHP license.
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html
:-)
> Otherwise, they can simply publish a new version of the PHP license
> (3.1?) with this clause purged, or, at least, narrowed down to something
> along the lines of:
>
> | 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP"
> | without prior written permission from group@php.net.
Or something like this, which I think gets at their goal better (which is
to enforce a trademark with a copyright license, which is dumb, but
whatever) --
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", or
any name which indicates authorship by or endorsement by php.net,
without prior written permission from group@php.net.
Or this --
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", or
any name which would infringe on the "PHP" trademark,
without prior written permission from group@php.net.
--
ksig --random|
Reply to: