William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Stefan Esser wrote: > >> It should be noted, that the PHP Group is not allowed to give anyone the >> right to use PHP in it's product name. >> > > It's called a Trademark. It may or may not be a Registered Mark, but both > concepts exist carrying varying weight in any jurisdiction. > > >> If they do so they violating the Open Source Definition >> >> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 >> >> Any kind of discrimination against anyone is not allowed. Giving some >> people special rights, like allowing them to use the name PHP in their >> Products name, while other parties are not allowed is clearly in >> violation with the discrimination paragraph... >> > > You are right. The PHP Group's grant of permission to use their Mark is > not granted under the OSI model. Neither is any other Open Source project's > grant. Your point is neither here nor there with respect of LICENSE TO THE > CODE, which is what OSI's license compatibility applies to. > > Try creating GNUPHP or MicrosoftPHP - free or closed most projects treat > their Marks protectively, and you would have hassles (legal or otherwise) > with either using their Marks without their permission. No matter if it's > stated in the license or not has little relation to Trademark law which has > nothing to do with copyright law or patent law. None of the OSI licenses > grant you permission to reuse their Mark for your purpose. Hi,
By your rationale, the java extension should have had Sun up in arms to prevent the usage of their marks. The same goes for the PEAR package Spreadsheet_Excel_Writer, which explicitly contains the name of a Microsoft product. On the contrary, as you most likely know, there has not been a single complaint. The OSI license guidelines requires non-discrimination with regards to access to the *code*, not to the *name* of software. Let's look at the rationale for #5: "/*Rationale:* In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources//. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.//"/ Key words here: "to contribute to open sources." The PHP License fits this model. The PHP License (which btw needs to be updated to include 2007 in the copyright) requires only the copyright notice and a disclaimer (depending on distribution type) and then asks for written permission to use PHP in the name, even suggesting an alternative "Foo for PHP." Any other reading is a clear and in my opinion unsavory distortion of the text. Thanks, Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
