Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 02:59:04AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Linguistically, this seems clear to me.
> 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.
Is English your first language?
I find it hard to believe that any native speaker with a reasonable
degree of literacy can misinterpret that paragraph in the way that
you have, whilst still believing that it "seems clear".
For the avoidance of doubt, that paragraph "clearly" means that:
* you may not call your derived product "PHP"
* "PHP" may not appear in your derived product's name
if you wish to take advantage of the permissions to be granted, unless
you have prior written permission to do so.
They go on to suggest ways in which you could convey the fact that
your product works in conjunction with PHP without pissing them off.
Cheers,
Nick
Reply to: