Re: [PEAR-QA] PHP License

[MJ Ray]

Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> As source code, it is not a derivative, I agree...  but once it is compiled
>  it
> is now a derivative work joining the library with the code to form the final
> binary.  Its the act of compilation that creates the derivative work.

Most (all?) php applications like phpbb2 are distributed as source
and covered only by their licence not the PHP one, last I saw. The
compilation happens on the installed system and isn't usually
distributed. All this seems moot.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP License

[Charles Fry]

> >   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"
> >
> > Hmm. These two points are very specific to distributions of the PHP
> > language. A PHP application that is distributed separately from PHP
> > itself should 1) not need to stipulate how the name "PHP" is used, and
> > 2) probably lacks any authority to make such claims.
> >
> Also correct. I believe this applies to the PHP trademark. If there is a PEAR 
> trademark registered, we could just replace "PHP" with "PEAR." If not, just 
> eliminate them.

I don't think that it makes sense to replace PHP with PEAR, because most
of the software packages that are being distributed are not named "PEAR"
and thus don't run the risk of having a derivitive named "PEAR" that is
mistaken for the original.

My recommendation would thus be to eliminate them (at which point you
are basically left with the BSD License).

> >   6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> >   acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from
> >   ".
> >
> > Ouch. This means that I can't distribute a PEAR module released under
> > the PHP License without bundling in PHP itself. This makes it impossible
> > to distribute PEAR modules by themselves (i.e. not bundled with the PHP
> > language) in a deb or an rpm. :-(
> >
> > The problem is severe enough that we are currently unable to package
> > PEAR modules for Debian when they are relased under the PHP License. We
> > attempt to contact the upstream authors, and ask them to adopt a new
> > license, but our requests are not always accepted.
> >
> > So, what can be done to rectify this situation?
> >
> I feel that your interpretation of those clauses is overbroad and incorrect. 
> The clause does not state that the product must bundle PHP, but that it must 
> affix a notice to the effect that it includes it. Aside from being completely 
> inapplicable to PHP-licensed PEAR packages, the copyright notice itself 
> serves as the fulfillment of that clause.

This has been addressed by others, but it sounds incorrect to affix a
notice to the effect that PHP is included when it is not.

> I do think the license should be fixed (or a more appropriate derivative 
> created for PEAR packages), but I don't think the license in any way 
> prohibits Debian packaging of PEAR or PEAR packages; nor has it stopped such 
> packaging in the past. See: php-pear-log, php-db, php-auth, php-net-socket, 
> etc etc etc.

As for Debian, whether or not you agree with it, this issue will prevent
all PHP applications that use the PHP License from being added to
Debian:

   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg00011.html

Given that you and all others who have weighed in on this issue agree
that the license should be fixed, I invite the PEAR Group to now take
the initiative to address this issue in the manner that they find most
appropriate. :-)

Charles

-- 
It's a good
Old Spanish custom
Take your mug
And brush
And bust 'em
Burma-Shave
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1943/its_a_good


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [PEAR-QA] PHP License

[Sean Kellogg]

On Thursday 25 August 2005 02:01 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>
> > As source code, it is not a derivative, I agree...  but once it is
> > compiled it
> > is now a derivative work joining the library with the code to form the
> > final binary.  Its the act of compilation that creates the derivative
> > work.
>
> Most (all?) php applications like phpbb2 are distributed as source
> and covered only by their licence not the PHP one, last I saw. The
> compilation happens on the installed system and isn't usually
> distributed. All this seems moot.

Yeah, that's certainly one way of looking at it.  But then again, the license 
says "Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may 
"PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"  When a user downloads phpbb2 and joins it with PHP to 
create the finished derivative product it seems they are in violation of the 
license.  

I was under the impression that d-l took it as one of its responsibilities to 
ensure that users don't get put in these sorts of situations.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair 
w: http://www.probonogeek.org

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

[Raul Miller]

On 8/24/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable.

To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work, 
their implementations are copyrightable.

-- 
Raul

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

[Raul Miller]

On 8/24/05, Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Section 7 of the OGL also states that:
> 
> "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any
> Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work
> containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another,
> independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered
> Trademark."
> 
> In other words, it discriminates against the legitimate field of
> endeavour of writing games and other works compatible with other
> trademarked works. Please also see my notes on restrictions on
> software usage.

This might be a real issue, but I'm not certain about that.

Essentially they're saying that you can't use other people's trademarks
without their permission.

What this *probably* really means (and probably should say) is that 
this license is not a grant of trademark rights.  It's probably the case
that that's how a court would interpret that clause.

Then again, it's probably ok to suggest that they make this clearer.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable.
> To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work, 
> their implementations are copyrightable.

But that's not what TSR means.  They're claiming that if you use their game
mechanics in your own work, even without copying a concrete implementation,
you're violating copyright.

This started in the mid-1990s when TSR tried to shut down a lot of sites for
using game mechanics (whether or not anything was copied).  For instance,
see 
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/ce23543781715cdf
 .  TSR claimed that if you created material using TSR game
mechanics and posted it elsewhere than on TSR's own site, you were violating
copyright.  Later, TSR changed hands, and they created the OGL, which
seemed to take a more lenient stance, but which was still based around the
idea that TSR can copyright game mechanics and that you need a license to
create materials that use them.

I suggest doing a Google groups search for rec.games.frp.dnd, TSR, and
"game mechanics" to see just what was going on at the time.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Pre-ITP - LARN and Noah Morgan

[Alex Perry]

I'd like to package the existing game "LARN" for Debian.
Before I send out an ITP, I'd like to clarify one issue.
The text below is what I'd currently put in "debian/copyright".
Is this sufficient to enable addition into contrib or main ?

Nathan Tenny has the following note on a web page ...
http://people.qualcomm.com/ntenny/larn.html
> As an historical note: I've never really known anything
> about Noah Morgan, the author of the original Larn and hence,
> in some sense, the guy from whom I learned C. In looking
> for the source code, I learned that he died in the late 1990s.

{begin}
This applies to LARN versions 12.2 and 12.3 as of August 2005.

In 1990, Kevin wrote:
> LARN was released for the UNIX environment in 1986 by Noah Morgan.
> It was subsequently ported to the MS-DOS environment by Don Kneller.
> Kevin Routley has been working on enhancements to LARN on and off
> for the past year.

There are six known contributors:
Noah Morgan Original author of LARN
Don Kneller Port for DECRainbow and PC compatible
Fred Fish   Termcap support for VMS port
Daniel KegelEnhanced ansi terminal decoding for DOS
Kevin Routley   Integration, enhancement and release
Alexander Perry Port for Linux 2.x kernel and GCC 3.x

Fred Fish and Daniel Kegel included specific license text in
their contributions that limit use to Personal, Noncommercial.
The associated materials have been omitted from the Debian
release so the remainder meets DFSG.  Consequently, anyone
wishing to compile for DOS or VMS should not use this source.

In an email on Aug 15 2005, Kevin wrote to Alex:
> I proceeded on the casual assumption that Noah Morgan
> and Don Kneller would have no issues with changes
> being made and posted. They posted to a public forum,
> and I seem to vaguely recall that their licensing
> permitted changes and redistribution as long as their
> original copyright statements were preserved. I never
> heard anything from anyone to the contrary, but that
> doesn't mean that it was "OK".

Accordingly, we believe Noah and Don's intentions met DFSG.

Kevin's email described his own intentions:
> I had every intention of distributing my changes to
> Larn under the same conditions. I made every effort at
> the time to document my intentions, but either that
> was insufficient or you possibly have an incomplete
> distribution, or more likely as you said the "rules"
> have changed.

Debian/Linux/GCC porting contributions are under modified BSD:
Copyright (c) 2005 Alexander Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
   may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
   without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
{end}


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]