Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
- From: Pierre <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:57:05 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <1132742695.864872.11130.nullmailer@me>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1132742695.864872.11130.nullmailer@me>
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:40:00 +0000
> Pierre wrote:
> > Rasmus just commited the PHP License 3.01
> > http://cvs.php.net/co.php/php-src/LICENSE?r=1.24
> > I think the problems are solved in this new version.
> > Please review it and let us know that everything is fine. It was a
> > pain to get that changed but it is done.
> [Cc'd to Pierre because I'm not sure who "us" is here.]
> Sorry, I've reviewed it and everything is not fine. The change seems
> extremely minor. It still seems to require people to lie about the
> derivation of their software and is seeking to use copyright to make
> a "super-trademark," if the PHP License is used for things not
> authored by the PHP Group (like much of PEAR?).
> Further, the super-trademark clause 4 seems to contradict itself: PHP
> may not appear in names, but one can call software "Thing for PHP".
> This licence still lets PHP follow DFSG, but seems inappropriate for
> other software.
They are minor but required and enough to fix the legal problems.
This license is now suitable for other software than php.
I'm no lawyer, I only ask some I know and got an OK.
As far as I can tell, the clause 4 is irrelevant, I do not like this
clause neither (as far as I remember, it is the reason why the PHP
License is not GPL compatible).
What I was meaning with "us" is that everyone in the debian project
involved in this area and with a good knowledge about licenses problems
(and specifically with the pear/php packages) could give me an ok if
everything is fine from a legal point of view.
Thanks for the feedbacks,