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