[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (Why is this being CC'd to d-d?)

I set the MFT to go to -legal only in my response, so I've no clue why
you sent it to -devel again.

> 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

The link which I quoted above was a response to this message which
directly addressed the freeness issue.
> 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.

There's a serious difference here.

Apache is called Apache.

PHP is called PHP.

The works that are not called PHP or derived from PHP and contain this
clause are no longer requiring a name change inline with DFSG 4.
They're outlawing an entire class of names unrelated to the original
name of the work.

Don Armstrong

Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be
running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to
repetitive music.

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: