On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND " > > > is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team. > > Agreed; this license is still not suitable for software that doesn't come > > from the PHP Group. > Non-free unsuitable or just unsuitable? A lot of non-BSD software uses the > BSD license's "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS" > disclaimer, even software with nothing provided by THE REGENTS. It's a > mistake, claiming someone contributed to something when they didn't, though > it's a mistake Debian encourages, given that any package using a common- > licenses/BSD symlink has this problem ... > (The disclaimers, incidentally, are otherwise identical, except for the odd > change of "EXPRESS" to "EXPRESSED".) > Is it the lack of "AND CONTRIBUTORS" that's the problem? The only difference > I might guess is that the PHP license's version may not disclaim warranty > for some people, but they're free not to do that, right? (But probably > didn't intend not to ...) Yes, after revisiting this I think you're right. The terms of their warranty disclaimer certainly don't make it non-free. So I guess the only real remaining issue is the pseudo-trademark problem, which is equally an issue for any software that isn't itself named "PHP" regardless of who the upstream is, and also an issue for software that *is* named "PHP", though to a slightly lesser degree. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature