On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:57:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli 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 is equivalent to clauses in licenses derived from the old Apache license, eg. Subversion: 5. Products derived from this software may not use the "Tigris" name nor may "Tigris" appear in their names without prior written permission of CollabNet. Here's my favorite: 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Sudo" nor may "Sudo" appear in their names without specific prior written permission from the author. These clauses are annoying, especially when they use dictionary words, like "Apache"[1]. Code from Apache can't be used in my new game, "Apache Helicopter Simulation". These clauses have always been considered free, though, just annoying. I've suggested in the past that this feels non- free[2], but that's as far as it's ever gone. > It gets even worse when applied to anything that is not PHP itself. I disagree: it's equally bad or not bad for PHP and anything not PHP. The notion that a license could be "free for PHP but not anything else" is nonsensical, since modified works are not PHP. That would mean that PHP is free, but modified versions are non-free--an impossible conclusion, I hope. [1] The Apache license has since changed; "Apache" is just an easy word to make an example with. [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00980.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00229.html -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
