On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:04:44PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> wrote: > > Since Debian is (or at least may be) distributing patches in their > > packages that are not part of upstream, we are distributing a derived > > product and hence must not name it PHP. > php3's licence says "must not" but only for "endorse or promote" > which I don't think we're doing, are we? > php4's licence says "may not be called" but isn't "may not ..." a > lot different to "must not ..."? I don't think anyone needs their > permission unless it's infringing on their trademark. Clause > 4 appears weak enough to allow debian's use. How is that any different legally? When someone tells me that I "may not" do something, I'm being told that I don't have permission to do it, I'm not being told that there's a chance I won't do it. > As a first attempt to fix, if it's thought to be a problem, can > you ask group@php.net to give blanket permission for php packaging > to be called "PHP" or "PHP for distribution-or-package-system"? That sounds like it would be worthwhile. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature