On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (Why is this being CC'd to d-d?)
I set the MFT to go to -legal only in my response, so I've no clue why you sent it to -devel again. > 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. > > See > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/12/msg00156.html The link which I quoted above was a response to this message which directly addressed the freeness issue. > This clause has been examined carefully in the past and deemed ugly > but not non-free (at least, with no serious objections)--at least in > the "Apache", etc. cases. There's a serious difference here. Apache is called Apache. PHP is called PHP. The works that are not called PHP or derived from PHP and contain this clause are no longer requiring a name change inline with DFSG 4. They're outlawing an entire class of names unrelated to the original name of the work. Don Armstrong -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]