Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

(Why is this being CC'd to d-d?)

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>    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. [...]
> 
> For example, I should be able to call my derived software
> TELEGRAPHPOLE if I want to, which contains "PHP", but does not use the
> words PHP in a manner that would likely fall afoul of any trademark of
> the term PHP, which presumably the PHP group already has.
> 
> As this goes farther than what DFSG 4 allows by dissallowing an entire
> class of names, instead of merely requiring that the software changed
> names when it is a derived version, it's non-free.

See

 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/12/msg00156.html

This clause has been examined carefully in the past and deemed ugly
but not non-free (at least, with no serious objections)--at least in
the "Apache", etc. cases.  However, I don't think that should be extended
to the general case; "nor may 'net' appear in their name" is obviously
not free.  It's an impossible line to draw, between "PHP" and "Apache"
being annoying and "net" being completely unreasonable, which suggests
that it really shouldn't be considered free.

I don't know if it's a battle worth fighting now.  Like patch clauses,
there are so few of them that it's probably not that big a battle, but
if you do want to fight that fight, I don't think "PHP" is any worse
than "Apache", so the objection should be extended across the others
and not single out PHP.

-- 
Glenn Maynard