On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 05:09:56PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode 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] You may indicate that your software works in > > | conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling > > | it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" > > > > This starts as a name-change clause, but then goes beyond and forbids an > > entire class of names for derived works (any name having "PHP" as a > > substring, minus some exceptions). > > This is overreaching, IMO, and makes the clause non-free. > > Worse, it's contradictory. > >You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by > >saying "Foo for PHP" > PHP appears in the name "Foo for PHP".
They said 'saying "Foo for PHP"', where the name of the program is "Foo". (Once again, "don't create your own license". This clause is even more obnoxious than Apache's, because it's different, and once again people get to waste time poring over it to see just what it means.) This clause in Apache has always seemed to be in a class of "seems non-free, but not annoying enough and in too major a program for anyone to call them on it". Apache no longer uses this clause. Unfortunately, before they fixed it, this bit of brain-damage infected other programs, notably Subversion. Strong evidence that people need to object loudly to stupid licensing, because if it's not fixed, it's going to spread ... Maybe somebody will write a program under this license, and call it something like "Mail" or "Linux". :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
