Re: Zend Engine License

2014-08-01 Thread MJ Ray
On 2 August 2014 04:51:30 CEST, Riley Baird wrote: >Another thought: Doesn't the Zend Engine License also have the same >problem as the PHP License in that we are not allowed to use the words >"Zend" or "Zend Engine" for modified versions of the Zend Engine? > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb

Zend Engine License

2014-08-01 Thread Riley Baird
Another thought: Doesn't the Zend Engine License also have the same problem as the PHP License in that we are not allowed to use the words "Zend" or "Zend Engine" for modified versions of the Zend Engine? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubs

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 08:10:49AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > > I think that it is important that a few of the ‘some members’ would identify > themselves in support for that request, and explain what they would do if the > worries expressed below turned out to be true. Sorry for the extra

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:59:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > Draft question for SFLC: > > > Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP > licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant > upstreams. We would like some advice. Hello Ian and

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread Riley Baird
Last minute concerns: The warranty disclaimer states that the software is provided by the PHP development team. What if it isn't? Do people that are not members of the PHP development team have the right to make that claim on their behalf? Similarly, the license includes the phrase "This software

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread MJ Ray
On 1 August 2014 17:59:11 CEST, Ian Jackson wrote: >Similar situations often arise in relation to trademarks. Our usual >approach in such cases has been to rely on the informal assurances, >and not seek any kind of formal trademark licence amendment. I thought we relied on the fact that tradema

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread Ian Jackson
Francesco Poli writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"): > Wait! This license version is already obsolete! Thanks for pointing that out. > Please revise your draft in light of the current > PHP License, version 3.01: > http://php.net/license/3_01.txt > https://lists.debian.org/debian-le

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:22:50 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote: > Draft question for SFLC: [...] > > We are concerned here with the PHP 3.0 Licence, which can be found > here: http://php.net/license/3_0.txt Wait! This license version is already obsolete! Please revise your draft in light of the current PH

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread Ian Jackson
Draft question for SFLC: Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant upstreams. We are concerned here with the PHP 3.0 Licence, which can be found here: http://php.net/license/3_0.txt There are two co

Re: Status of uw-prism packaging for Debian

2014-08-01 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > I'm forwarding a part of a discussion to you legal experts for > clarification: I'm afraid debian-legal is mostly armchair lawyers. If you want to consult actual lawyers, it would be best to get legal advice from the SFLC, who we have gotten

Re: Status of uw-prism packaging for Debian

2014-08-01 Thread Andreas Tille
[Please keep Ira Kalet and the Debian Med mailing list in CC] Hello, I'm forwarding a part of a discussion to you legal experts for clarification: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:15:49AM -0700, Ira Kalet wrote: > > > >>3. Finally, there is still the issue of what the US FDA might say > >>about distri