The one big thing that everyone in this thread has missed is that we are trying to establish the utility of this licence to software explicitely distributed by the PHP Group at php.net in Pear or Pecl. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The PHP License, version 3.01 > > Copyright (c) 1999 - 2005 The PHP Group. All rights reserved. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > > 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 a sort of name-change clause (permitted by DFSG#4) *if* the > license is applied to PHP itself. > It's really inappropriate for anything that is *not* PHP itself > (especially when the copyright holder is not the PHP Group). The question here is whether or not it is appropriate for software explicitely distributed by the PHP Group. > > 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" > > When the license is applied to PHP itself, this starts as a name-change > clause, but then goes beyond and forbids an entire class of names for > derived works (any name having "PHP" as a substring, minus some > exceptions). > This is overreaching, IMO, and makes the clause non-free. > > This gets even worse when applied to anything that is not PHP itself. Again, what about for software explicitely distributed by the PHP Group? > [...] > > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following > > acknowledgment: > > "This product includes PHP software, freely available from > > <http://www.php.net/software/>". > > This clause forces redistributors to lie, *if* the license is applied to > anything that is neither PHP itself, nor "PHP software" (actually > available from <http://www.php.net/software/>). > OK for PHP itself and some other software, non-free for anything else. Again, missing the point. These guys are trying to come up with a licence that is fit both for distributing PHP and PHP Group software (available at the above URL). The question for Debian is whether or not this licence is acceptable for the large class of Pear/Pecl modules available from php.net (from the PHP Group). > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' > > Once again false for anything not provided by the PHP development team. Sure, but true for stuff that is (and one could argue that anything from the PHP Group is). > Ah, I forgot the last part: I'll quote it now... > > | This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many > | individuals on behalf of the PHP Group. > > Again false for anything not made on behalf of the PHP Group. All right, so per your analysis, this licence seems perfectly fit for software distributed by the PHP Group, which is the current matter at hand. Charles -- No pushee No pully Smooth shavy Feel bully Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1939/no_pushee_no
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature