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:
pgpgMIzPFv_Vc.pgp
Description: PGP signature