On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:45:00 +0200 Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 22:13, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
> > As you may have read in the thread you're referring to (I don't know
> > which of them, as there are quite several), I don't agree.
> > I believe that PHP license version 3.01 does not comply
> > with the DFSG, even when applied to PHP itself or to PHP Group
> > software. The problematic clause is #4.
> >
> > [___]
> >
> > In particular, my analysis of the PHP License version 3.01 can be
> > found here:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00271.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html
>
> Point is, I'm not conviced at all that #4 makes php non free. It's an
> irritating clause, but it does not prevent me to exercice the 4 basic
> free software freedoms.
It's a nasty restriction that goes beyond what is allowed (as a
compromise!) by DFSG#4.
But I won't restate what I already explained in the mentioned threads:
please take the time to read them (if you haven't already) and then my
reasoning should be clearer to you (I hope!).
>
> It just says that you cannot use php in the *name* of the product, as
> it's a reserved token for products from the PHP group. but it
> explicitely allow you to say "libFoo" is a lib that does Foo for PHP,
> or to call your project "libFoo for PHP". PHP does not only refers to
> an language (like python, C, Ada does) but to the specific Zend
> implementation of that language.
PHP are three letters in a row, they are not reserved in any way (as
long as they are not a trademark).
You cannot prevent (through copyright, I mean) anyone from writing an
original program and name it "PHP" or a string containing those three
letters. Only authors of derivative works are denied such a right.
So the clause doesn't seem to achieve what it was maybe meant to (that
is to say, reserve the string "PHP" for PHP Group software).
On the other hand, the clause is overly broad and prevents people from
calling a derivative work "TELEGRAPHPOLE" or "RALPHPANTHER"...
>
> This clause may be called clumsy, but not non-free IMHO.
>
> > I would like to explicitly (re)stress that this analysis is my
> > opinion only and didn't gain wide consensus on debian-legal.
> > Nonetheless, I didn't get a satisfactory rebuttal.
> > Consequently, I believe this issue is still open and undecided.
>
> well, how could we have this decided once for all ? requiring a GR on
> that issue seems a bit exagerated ...
Of course a GR is not the right instrument for such an issue (please
let's not start talking about GR-2006-001 and its horrible results:
doing so would drive the discussion very far away from the current
topic...).
What I meant was: the issue didn't gain a clear consensus on
debian-legal and so it's IMHO still open.
Instead, I would have liked seeing it fixed in PHP License by the PHP
Group...
--
:-( 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:
pgplmhtE3qlbu.pgp
Description: PGP signature