Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:31:07PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I set the MFT to go to -legal only in my response, so I've no clue why
> you sent it to -devel again.
I used Mutt's list-reply feature, which included d-d. Either the
headers were set incorrectly, or Mutt has a bug. (It doesn't bother
me enough to spend time investigating, though.)
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP",
> > > nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written
> > > permission from firstname.lastname@example.org. [...]
> > >
> > > For example, I should be able to call my derived software
> > > TELEGRAPHPOLE if I want to, which contains "PHP", but does not use
> > > the words PHP in a manner that would likely fall afoul of any
> > > trademark of the term PHP, which presumably the PHP group already
> > > has.
> > >
> > > As this goes farther than what DFSG 4 allows by dissallowing an
> > > entire class of names, instead of merely requiring that the
> > > software changed names when it is a derived version, it's
> > > non-free.
Your argument was not predicated on whether the work in question was
actually called "PHP" or not, but rather saying that, regardless of
the name, DFSG#4 does not allow you to outlaw the entire class of
"*PHP*" names. I agreed in principle, but with reservations, which
was the nature of my reply. I don't see any other interpretation of
the above text, so if I'm way off on my reading, please clarify.