On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 08:13:05PM -0700, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> I am inquiring further clarification on the PHP license (I'm
> including v2.2 and v3.0) as to whether or not they qualify as DFSG. I
> ask this as most all PEAR modules (similar to Perl's CPAN) appear to be
> licensed under this license. I know it is listed with the Open Source
> Initiative as an open source license but I've long since learned that
> doesn't mean Debian accepts everything OSI does.
> If a consensus on this could be reached it would be appreciated as
> if PEAR modules licensed under the PHP license are non-DFSG that means
> most, if not all, PEAR modules would be non-free at best and with many
> PHP applications making use of PEAR modules would mean moving them from
> main to contrib or non-free themselves.
Yes, the PHP license is generally agreed to be DFSG-free. However, as
previously discussed on debian-legal, it contains a number of clauses which
make it inappropriate for use as a license on anything that *isn't* PHP
itself.
> 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
> derived from this software without prior permission from the
> PHP Group. This does not apply to add-on libraries or tools
> that work in conjunction with PHP. In such a case the PHP
> name may be used to indicate that the product supports PHP.
> 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.
This is acceptable in a license for PHP; even though it's not great to try
to shoehorn trademark concerns into a copyright license, DFSG4 permits this
kind of clause. But it's not appropriate in a license clause on software
that is *not* named "PHP".
> 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"
(3.0 version of the license only)
This is another pseudo-trademark clause, which in the case of PHP itself can
be dealt with by a name change if necessary. It's out of scope for a
DFSG-free license when such a clause is used for software that isn't PHP.
> 5. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> acknowledgment:
> "This product includes PHP, freely available from
> http://www.php.net/";.
> 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> acknowledgment:
> "This product includes PHP, freely available from
> <http://www.php.net/>".
When the license is applied to things that aren't PHP, this clause requires
us to lie. That's not a reasonable thing to ask in a free software license.
> 6. The software incorporates the Zend Engine, a product of Zend
> Technologies, Ltd. ("Zend"). The Zend Engine is licensed to the
> PHP Association (pursuant to a grant from Zend that can be
> found at http://www.php.net/license/ZendGrant/) for
> distribution to you under this license agreement, only as a
> part of PHP. In the event that you separate the Zend Engine
> (or any portion thereof) from the rest of the software, or
> modify the Zend Engine, or any portion thereof, your use of the
> separated or modified Zend Engine software shall not be governed
> by this license, and instead shall be governed by the license
> set forth at http://www.zend.com/license/ZendLicense/.
This is a lie on the part of the licensor, but otherwise is completely
ignorable.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature