On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:08:09 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 12:28:50PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Yes, they are annoying. > > Worse: they are non-free. > > As Don Armstrong explained more clearly than I did: they are a > > restriction on derivative works (DFSG#3) not explicitly allowed by > > DFSG#4. > > Again--this has been said too many times--merely being a restriction > on derivative works not explicitly allowed does not inherently make it > prohibited. That's the hard-line interpretation: "no more, period, > end of discussion", but that's just not Debian's interpretation. The > GPL puts all kinds of restrictions on modification and distribution > which aren't explicitly allowed. > > Some people say "if it's not mentioned in the DFSG, it's never > allowed"; say "if it's not mentioned in the DFSG, it's always > allowed". Both of them are wrong. The former is disproven by > example--the GPL; the latter would render the DFSG worthless. Well, DFSG#4 says, in part, that "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software." and then explains that this is a compromise and that all authors are encouraged "not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.". I'm not saying that *any* restriction on modification is banned by the DFSG, but restrictions in the directions depicted in DFSG#4 seem to be allowed to a limited extent as a compromise, and discouraged at the same time. So I think that going in one of those directions, and beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4, should be considered non-free. That's what I meant. > > (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. [...] > > When applied to case (c), instead, it's not a name-change clause as > > allowed by DFSG#4 ("[...] The license may require derived works to > > carry a different name or version number from the *original > > software* [...]", emphasis mine): in case (c) we have a > > do-not-name-derivatives-like-that clause, which isn't allowed by the > > DFSG. > > It's always been allowed in practice; the most common license that > does this being the original Apache license. I'd suggest that you're > making a new claim about an old license clause, and that you're still > early in the "convincing others" phase. So, I'd recommend not telling > non-d-legal people that a license is non-free and that action needs to > be taken/not taken (as you seem to be doing here, claiming the PHP > license is non-free) until you've brought the argument to consensus. I'm actually trying to gain consensus by stating my reasoning on d-legal. > > > The question is: how do name-change clauses work? > > Sorry, but as we're still sort of in the "agreeing on exactly what it > is we're arguing about" step, can we keep the arguments succinct? :) I'm sorry for the not-quite-short analysis. The truth is: I tried to express myself with succinct arguments earlier on this same subject and some people (most notably you!) seemed to miss my point because I probably was not clear enough; so I tried to be a bit more verbose (and maybe got *too much* verbose...). > > What I find annoying is the "may not contain" nature of the clause. I > think it's self-evidently DFSG-free for a license to say "may not be > called Foobar", Even for something that is not actually, and never was, called Foobar? > and annoying and borderline to say "may not contain > the word Foobar". I think that this is non-free. We are talking about a license that forbids me to derive a modified version of the work and name it "PHPng", "PHP++", "PHPlite", "microPHP" or "RALPHPANTHER"... You claim it's DFSG-free (even though "annoying and borderline"): would it be DFSG-free to say: * may not contain the string PH ? * may not contain both letters P and H ? * may not contain the letter P, nor the letter H? If you accept a restriction that forbids derivative names *containing* a three-letter string, why not accept one that forbids names containing a two-letter string? Or one that forbids names containing two letters? Or names containing one of two forbidden letters? I'm concerned that accepting such a restriction ("may not contain the string PHP") would lead us to accept any kind of restriction on derivative names, which is more than annoying: it may make finding a name for a derivative work nearly impossible... -- :-( 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:
pgpwaFwae2H20.pgp
Description: PGP signature