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] That being said, I see no reason why any upstream would ever need such a phrase in their license. 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. 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].] Don Armstrong 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. 2: Although, I suppose the nitpickers out there will notice that the licence specifies 'PHP', not 'php'... ;-) -- Grimble left his mother in the food store and went to the launderette and watched the clothes go round. It was a bit like colour television only with less plot. -- Clement Freud _Grimble_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature