On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:31:07PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > I set the MFT to go to -legal only in my response, so I've no clue why > you sent it to -devel again.
I used Mutt's list-reply feature, which included d-d. Either the headers were set incorrectly, or Mutt has a bug. (It doesn't bother me enough to spend time investigating, though.) > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong 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] [...] > > > > > > For example, I should be able to call my derived software > > > TELEGRAPHPOLE if I want to, which contains "PHP", but does not use > > > the words PHP in a manner that would likely fall afoul of any > > > trademark of the term PHP, which presumably the PHP group already > > > has. > > > > > > As this goes farther than what DFSG 4 allows by dissallowing an > > > entire class of names, instead of merely requiring that the > > > software changed names when it is a derived version, it's > > > non-free. Your argument was not predicated on whether the work in question was actually called "PHP" or not, but rather saying that, regardless of the name, DFSG#4 does not allow you to outlaw the entire class of "*PHP*" names. I agreed in principle, but with reservations, which was the nature of my reply. I don't see any other interpretation of the above text, so if I'm way off on my reading, please clarify. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
