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

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:04:44PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 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.

I invite other people to give more legal information.

Linguistically, this seems clear to me. Showing in context:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, is permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
  4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
     may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
     from group@php.net.  You may indicate that your software works in
     conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
     it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
Now, I hope nearly everyone defines the relevant sense of "may"
as "have permission" or similar. So, it's permitted provided
that {we don't have permission for some acts without permission
from group@}. The {}d bit is probably always true unless someone
else gives us permission (huh?).

If it's not intended as a statement (and I hope it is) then I think
it's a case of Lawyer error: reboot Lawyer.

I hope the blanket permission email wouldn't be a problem.
There's enough stuff with names like phpfoo which aren't all
derived and aren't being chased, as far as I can tell.


Reply to: