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

Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP License



On Tuesday 23 August 2005 03:30 pm, Charles Fry wrote:
> (snip)
> The problem is that the current version of The PHP License (version 3.0)
> contains several clauses which are specific to the PHP language, and
> either inapplicable or even problematic for applications written in PHP.
>
This is quite true.


>   3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
>   derived from this software without prior written permission. For
>   written permission, please contact group@php.net.
>
>   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"
>
> Hmm. These two points are very specific to distributions of the PHP
> language. A PHP application that is distributed separately from PHP
> itself should 1) not need to stipulate how the name "PHP" is used, and
> 2) probably lacks any authority to make such claims.
>
Also correct. I believe this applies to the PHP trademark. If there is a PEAR 
trademark registered, we could just replace "PHP" with "PEAR." If not, just 
eliminate them.


>   6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
>   acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from
>   <http://www.php.net/>".
>
> Ouch. This means that I can't distribute a PEAR module released under
> the PHP License without bundling in PHP itself. This makes it impossible
> to distribute PEAR modules by themselves (i.e. not bundled with the PHP
> language) in a deb or an rpm. :-(
>
> The problem is severe enough that we are currently unable to package
> PEAR modules for Debian when they are relased under the PHP License. We
> attempt to contact the upstream authors, and ask them to adopt a new
> license, but our requests are not always accepted.
>
> So, what can be done to rectify this situation?
>
I feel that your interpretation of those clauses is overbroad and incorrect. 
The clause does not state that the product must bundle PHP, but that it must 
affix a notice to the effect that it includes it. Aside from being completely 
inapplicable to PHP-licensed PEAR packages, the copyright notice itself 
serves as the fulfillment of that clause.

I do think the license should be fixed (or a more appropriate derivative 
created for PEAR packages), but I don't think the license in any way 
prohibits Debian packaging of PEAR or PEAR packages; nor has it stopped such 
packaging in the past. See: php-pear-log, php-db, php-auth, php-net-socket, 
etc etc etc.

Attachment: pgpJiW4Hg2ZB5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: