(Why is this being CC'd to d-d?) 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] > > 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 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. However, I don't think that should be extended to the general case; "nor may 'net' appear in their name" is obviously not free. It's an impossible line to draw, between "PHP" and "Apache" being annoying and "net" being completely unreasonable, which suggests that it really shouldn't be considered free. I don't know if it's a battle worth fighting now. Like patch clauses, there are so few of them that it's probably not that big a battle, but if you do want to fight that fight, I don't think "PHP" is any worse than "Apache", so the objection should be extended across the others and not single out PHP. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
