Le samedi 01 novembre 2008 à 17:59 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > First of all, a no-name-including-this-string clause may well be more > restrictive than default trademark law. A case where this is > particularly apparent is the PHP one: I am not allowed to use any name > including the string "PHP" for a derivative work of PHP, not even > something like RALPHPANTHER or TELEGRAPHPOLE! > Those example names are not confusingly similar to PHP, as far as I can > tell, and trademark laws usually insist on avoiding confusion, rather > than on substrings... > On the other hand, it should also be noted that a clause in a copyright > license cannot prevent me from writing a (non-derivative) work from > scratch and calling it "PHP++": so maybe such clauses do not even fully > reach their goal...
This is annoying for PHP, which is a short name, but frankly I fail to see how this could be a problem for CodeIgniter. > Secondly, one thing is having something forbidden by trademark law, one > different thing is adding copyright violation to the picture. > If trademark law already forbids something, why should I prevent it > through copyright law as well? I’m not questioning the uselessness of this clause. Nevertheless, its practical consequences are limited enough so that we can reasonably say it doesn’t violate the DFSG. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
