> > 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. I don't think that it makes sense to replace PHP with PEAR, because most of the software packages that are being distributed are not named "PEAR" and thus don't run the risk of having a derivitive named "PEAR" that is mistaken for the original. My recommendation would thus be to eliminate them (at which point you are basically left with the BSD License). > > 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. This has been addressed by others, but it sounds incorrect to affix a notice to the effect that PHP is included when it is not. > 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. As for Debian, whether or not you agree with it, this issue will prevent all PHP applications that use the PHP License from being added to Debian: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg00011.html Given that you and all others who have weighed in on this issue agree that the license should be fixed, I invite the PEAR Group to now take the initiative to address this issue in the manner that they find most appropriate. :-) Charles -- It's a good Old Spanish custom Take your mug And brush And bust 'em Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1943/its_a_good
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature