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: