On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> 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.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who sees a problem with the
PHP License version 3.01...
I agree that the pseudo-trademark super-name-change clause is the main
issue.
However the other annoying clauses (that are actually annoying only when
the license is applied to something that is not PHP, nor PHP software by
the PHP Group) should be fixed at the same time, so that we don't have
to come back and ask for more license changes, once the main issue is
solved...
Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem
that has been neglected in recent discussions:
| 3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
| derived from this software without prior written permission. For
| written permission, please contact group@php.net.
The usual no-endorsement clause that we consider acceptable in BSD
licenses and the like is different, because it talks about the name of
the copyright holder or contributors, not about the name of the original
work[1].
Clause #3 of the PHP License v3.01 forbids promoting derivative works
with sentences like "This product is based on PHP" or "This product is a
modified version of the famous PHP scripting language interpreter",
which are true and do not harm the PHP Group, AFAICS.
This is like forbidding Canonical to promote Ubuntu Linux with sentences
like "Based on Debian GNU/Linux", which are true and do no harm, I would
say...
Is clause #3 acceptable for PHP itself?
Is it acceptable for anything else?
Notes:
[1] Compare with http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html
| * Neither the name of [original copyright holder] nor the names of
| its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
| derived from this software without specific prior written
| permission.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpJdVdWmIwxr.pgp
Description: PGP signature