On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:40:00 +0000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pierre wrote: > > Rasmus just commited the PHP License 3.01 > > http://cvs.php.net/co.php/php-src/LICENSE?r=1.24 > > I think the problems are solved in this new version. > > > > Please review it and let us know that everything is fine. It was a > > pain to get that changed but it is done. > > [Cc'd to Pierre because I'm not sure who "us" is here.] > > Sorry, I've reviewed it and everything is not fine. The change seems > extremely minor. It still seems to require people to lie about the > derivation of their software and is seeking to use copyright to make > a "super-trademark," if the PHP License is used for things not > authored by the PHP Group (like much of PEAR?). > > Further, the super-trademark clause 4 seems to contradict itself: PHP > may not appear in names, but one can call software "Thing for PHP". > > This licence still lets PHP follow DFSG, but seems inappropriate for > other software.
They are minor but required and enough to fix the legal problems. This license is now suitable for other software than php. I'm no lawyer, I only ask some I know and got an OK. As far as I can tell, the clause 4 is irrelevant, I do not like this clause neither (as far as I remember, it is the reason why the PHP License is not GPL compatible). What I was meaning with "us" is that everyone in the debian project involved in this area and with a good knowledge about licenses problems (and specifically with the pear/php packages) could give me an ok if everything is fine from a legal point of view. Thanks for the feedbacks, Regards, --Pierre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
