On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > 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]. Why is that an important difference, in terms of freeness? > 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. I'm not sure this is a correct reading of "endorse or promote". "This product is based on PHP" is a factual statement, and implies no endorsement or promotion by the PHP Group. In contrast, saying "supported by PHP" or "works with PHP" implies an endorsement. I agree that it's confusing to talk about "endorsement" by PHP when the name "PHP" alone refers only to software, not to a person or group. So that's a silly bug, but I'm not convinced it's a fatal one here. -- 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