[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

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

Reply to: