Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-21 18:25:24 -0500: Personally I think PHP related projects should avoid using PHP in their name period as it causes far too many problems for the language itself, since most people fail to distinguish between PHP the language and project trying to gain popularity by shoving PHP into its name. php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t? -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 13:51 +, Roman Neuhauser wrote: php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t? That's wrong. These two projects don't use code which is licensed under the PHP License so the PHP Licenses doesn't affect them. (See also other (Rasmus's?) posts in this thread. But php.net is delivering another project, with PHP in it's name, which is infact called PHP and uses PHP licensed code, so maybe php.net is allowed to call there products PHP ;-) As a further note: 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] [...] [http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt] If they would use code licensed under the PHP license and therefore would be derived work, they could still ask for a written permission, how do you know they didn't? johannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Roman Neuhauser wrote: # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-21 18:25:24 -0500: Personally I think PHP related projects should avoid using PHP in their name period as it causes far too many problems for the language itself, since most people fail to distinguish between PHP the language and project trying to gain popularity by shoving PHP into its name. php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t? PHP license governs how you can use, copy, distribute and make derivatives PHP. It has no influence on how you call, develop or license applications that you wrote yourself and own copyright off. It sure cannot prevent people starting magazines or other publications using PHP name. So please get your facts straight before making such bold statements. Edin -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Roman Neuhauser wrote: # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-21 18:25:24 -0500: Personally I think PHP related projects should avoid using PHP in their name period as it causes far too many problems for the language itself, since most people fail to distinguish between PHP the language and project trying to gain popularity by shoving PHP into its name. php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t? Um wrong, phpDocumentor *EXPLICITLY* wrote php group and asked for permission to use php when we first switched to the php license years ago. Get your facts straight before posting rumors. Thanks, Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
It should be noted, that the PHP Group is not allowed to give anyone the right to use PHP in it's product name. If they do so they violating the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Any kind of discrimination against anyone is not allowed. Giving some people special rights, like allowing them to use the name PHP in their Products name, while other parties are not allowed is clearly in violation with the discrimination paragraph... But that is old news. Stefan Esser -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-23 08:59:46 -0600: Roman Neuhauser wrote: php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t? Um wrong, phpDocumentor *EXPLICITLY* wrote php group and asked for permission to use php when we first switched to the php license years ago. Get your facts straight before posting rumors. If I recall the discussions from several years ago correctly, the provisions to protect PHP were meant to prevent proliferation of programs written in PHP and called PHPthis of ThatPHP. So even if a special deal has allowed you to use PHP to endorse or promote PHPDocumentor, it is against the spirit of the license if not against the letter. I'd like to get permission to use PHP in the name of my MuchBetterDocumentor, where do I apply? ;) http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Hello, On 1/23/07, Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to get permission to use PHP in the name of my MuchBetterDocumentor, where do I apply? ;) http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] as always. Like it or not, that does not change anything :) --Pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
It should be noted, that the PHP Group is not allowed to give anyone the right to use PHP in it's product name. PHP Group doesn't need to give anyone this right, anyone already *has* this right, as long as this name is not trademarked (which it is not AFAIK) and the anyone does not use PHP code belonging to PHP Group. Even if said anyone does use PHP code, PHP Group can not give or take their right to name their product as they wish. However, PHP Group can control the distribution of the PHP code that belongs to it, so PHP Group could say either you ask us to name the product or you drop our code and code derived from it from your distribution, because you don't have the right to do so. If they do so they violating the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Any kind of discrimination against anyone is not allowed. Giving some I wonder what discrimination means in your world. In my world, this clause means that OS license can not put forth specific personal or group conditions for receiving the license, such as belonging or not belonging to ethnicity, race, religion, sex, political party, etc. group. Of course, PHP Group never did anything of a kind. Limiting the user of the code from using group's name for promoting their code is in no way discrimination, unless you speak the language where this word means something entirely different from what it means in English. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
I wonder what discrimination means in your world. In my world, this clause means that OS license can not put forth specific personal or group conditions for receiving the license, such as belonging or not belonging to ethnicity, race, religion, sex, political party, etc. group. Of course, PHP Group never did anything of a kind. Limiting the user of the code from using group's name for promoting their code is in no way discrimination, unless you speak the language where this word means something entirely different from what it means in English. There's another part of this too. The OSI lists the PHP license under their list of approved licenses. It would stand to reason that they don't see it as conflicting with their definition of Open Source. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/php.php Kevin -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
I wonder what discrimination means in your world. In my world, this clause means that OS license can not put forth specific personal or group conditions for receiving the license, such as belonging or not belonging to ethnicity, race, religion, sex, political party, etc. Stanislav, I know that you like to enforce your idea of what a word means on others, but the word *discrimination* comes from the Latin discriminare, which means to distinguish between. Discrimination means ANY kind of different treatmeant of different groups of people. There is one group that gets permission and another group that does not get permission. There's another part of this too. The OSI lists the PHP license under their list of approved licenses. It would stand to reason that they don't see it as conflicting with their definition of Open Source. Yeah well, I am waiting for their comment about this issue. Beside the fact that the License can still be OSI conform as long the PHP group does not give anyone a special treatmeant. Stefan Esser -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Hello Stefan, that's plain wrong what you wrote. First PHP license is OSI Approved and for that defintively does not violate any OSI recommendation. Besides that read the paragraph again and again. You will eventually find out that the act of disallowing to use the term php in any of their names to whomever by the php-group does not violate definition part 5. In fact that tells you that php-group must allow anyone to contribute, which they do. Noone has ever been removed from access against his will. And if your view was correct then simply no open source project would follow OSI guidelines. For example any term in any license means some restiction that only applies to certain people. ups. best regards marcus p.s.: Instead of discussing stuff that is better of with layers you guys should contribute to open sourcein the spirit of open source... Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 4:33:26 PM, you wrote: It should be noted, that the PHP Group is not allowed to give anyone the right to use PHP in it's product name. If they do so they violating the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Any kind of discrimination against anyone is not allowed. Giving some people special rights, like allowing them to use the name PHP in their Products name, while other parties are not allowed is clearly in violation with the discrimination paragraph... But that is old news. Stefan Esser Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Hello Marcus, that's plain wrong what you wrote. First PHP license is OSI Approved and for that defintively does not violate any OSI recommendation. Besides that We will see how OSI explains how a discriminating license can be OSI approved. read the paragraph again and again. You will eventually find out that the act of disallowing to use the term php in any of their names to whomever by the php-group does not violate definition part 5. In fact that tells you that php-group must allow anyone to contribute, which they do. Noone has I suggest that you read it again and again: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. This means the license MUST NOT have different rules for different kinds of people. Those in favour of PHP Group and those not. any term in any license means some restiction that only applies to certain people. ups. This is plain nonsense. Other licenses pretty much make it clear that ANYONE has to follow the same rules. p.s.: Instead of discussing stuff that is better of with layers you guys should contribute to open sourcein the spirit of open source... The spirit of open source is NOT that those in favour of the PHP Group can abuse the PHP Project for whatever they want. Like advertise their own companies. Stefan Esser -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Hello Stefan, the license rules are the same, get in contact. Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 8:14:47 PM, you wrote: Hello Marcus, that's plain wrong what you wrote. First PHP license is OSI Approved and for that defintively does not violate any OSI recommendation. Besides that We will see how OSI explains how a discriminating license can be OSI approved. read the paragraph again and again. You will eventually find out that the act of disallowing to use the term php in any of their names to whomever by the php-group does not violate definition part 5. In fact that tells you that php-group must allow anyone to contribute, which they do. Noone has I suggest that you read it again and again: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. This means the license MUST NOT have different rules for different kinds of people. Those in favour of PHP Group and those not. any term in any license means some restiction that only applies to certain people. ups. This is plain nonsense. Other licenses pretty much make it clear that ANYONE has to follow the same rules. p.s.: Instead of discussing stuff that is better of with layers you guys should contribute to open sourcein the spirit of open source... The spirit of open source is NOT that those in favour of the PHP Group can abuse the PHP Project for whatever they want. Like advertise their own companies. Stefan Esser Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Stanislav, I know that you like to enforce your idea of what a word means on others, but the word *discrimination* comes from the Latin discriminare, which means to distinguish between. Discrimination Yep. Too bad we don't speak Latin here. Otherwise any distinguishing between anything - like knowing left from right and good from bad - would be called discrimination :) There is one group that gets permission and another group that does not get permission. That's whole purpose of the copyright law - some people get permission to redistribute the works and some do not. If you opposed to the whole idea of the copyright law, then you should direct you complaints elsewhere, but if you accept this concept, you should accept existence of the groups of people that do receive permission to redistribute the works and groups of people that don't (which would be by default everybody unless the work is public domain), that's the whole meaning of the property rights and the permission. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Stefan Esser wrote: It should be noted, that the PHP Group is not allowed to give anyone the right to use PHP in it's product name. It's called a Trademark. It may or may not be a Registered Mark, but both concepts exist carrying varying weight in any jurisdiction. If they do so they violating the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Any kind of discrimination against anyone is not allowed. Giving some people special rights, like allowing them to use the name PHP in their Products name, while other parties are not allowed is clearly in violation with the discrimination paragraph... You are right. The PHP Group's grant of permission to use their Mark is not granted under the OSI model. Neither is any other Open Source project's grant. Your point is neither here nor there with respect of LICENSE TO THE CODE, which is what OSI's license compatibility applies to. Try creating GNUPHP or MicrosoftPHP - free or closed most projects treat their Marks protectively, and you would have hassles (legal or otherwise) with either using their Marks without their permission. No matter if it's stated in the license or not has little relation to Trademark law which has nothing to do with copyright law or patent law. None of the OSI licenses grant you permission to reuse their Mark for your purpose. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Stefan Esser wrote: The spirit of open source is NOT that those in favour of the PHP Group can abuse the PHP Project for whatever they want. Like advertise their own companies. We haven't granted that right to any specific companies. The only projects we have granted the right to use the brand to are the ones hosted on our cvs server and are developed by what we consider us. It goes back to the whole point of the license of protecting the brand. If something is called PHP it is something we have some control over. And no, we never granted any such right to Chris or any other external entity (and yes, Chris and folks were asked to fix their stuff last week). We also have better things to do than to chase down each and every use out there, especially when they are really fringe in the sense that people are unlikely to confuse them with our stuff. A heavily modified version of PHP is much more serious than some web page somewhere, for example. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Roman Neuhauser wrote: # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-23 08:59:46 -0600: Roman Neuhauser wrote: php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t? Um wrong, phpDocumentor *EXPLICITLY* wrote php group and asked for permission to use php when we first switched to the php license years ago. Get your facts straight before posting rumors. If I recall the discussions from several years ago correctly, the provisions to protect PHP were meant to prevent proliferation of programs written in PHP and called PHPthis of ThatPHP. So even if a special deal has allowed you to use PHP to endorse or promote PHPDocumentor, it is against the spirit of the license if not against the letter. I'd like to get permission to use PHP in the name of my MuchBetterDocumentor, where do I apply? ;) http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Hi, If you would take a look at section 3 and 4 of http://php.net/license/3_01.txt 3. The name PHP must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Note without prior written permission. Also note you need only call MuchBetterDocumentor MuchBetterDocumentor for PHP or get written permission to call it PHPMuchBetterDocumentor. This all assumes you're using the PHP License. The same restrictions just don't apply to other licenses. Trademark infringement is another story, and since you didn't raise that, I will address that in my reply to the person who did. The text of the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source is very clear in this regard. The section you quoted requires that no persons are excluded. 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. The PHP License naming requirement does not exclude any persons, it only requires that products using PHP in the name either receive permission, or change the name of the software. It is also not a special deal, I simply wrote an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (as the license says to do) and asked for permission. If you have a problem with this, please suggest a revision to the PHP License, otherwise what would you like me to do? Change the name of phpDocumentor because of some personal vendetta you have against the php group or against me? Thanks, Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
On 1/23/07, Gregory Beaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roman Neuhauser wrote: # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-23 08:59:46 -0600: Roman Neuhauser wrote: php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t? Um wrong, phpDocumentor *EXPLICITLY* wrote php group and asked for permission to use php when we first switched to the php license years ago. Get your facts straight before posting rumors. If I recall the discussions from several years ago correctly, the provisions to protect PHP were meant to prevent proliferation of programs written in PHP and called PHPthis of ThatPHP. So even if a special deal has allowed you to use PHP to endorse or promote PHPDocumentor, it is against the spirit of the license if not against the letter. I'd like to get permission to use PHP in the name of my MuchBetterDocumentor, where do I apply? ;) http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Hi, If you would take a look at section 3 and 4 of http://php.net/license/3_01.txt and 6. should matter too: 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: This product includes PHP software, freely available from http://www.php.net/software/. phpDocumentor is distributed through php.net (pear). --Pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Stefan Esser wrote: It should be noted, that the PHP Group is not allowed to give anyone the right to use PHP in it's product name. It's called a Trademark. It may or may not be a Registered Mark, but both concepts exist carrying varying weight in any jurisdiction. If they do so they violating the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Any kind of discrimination against anyone is not allowed. Giving some people special rights, like allowing them to use the name PHP in their Products name, while other parties are not allowed is clearly in violation with the discrimination paragraph... You are right. The PHP Group's grant of permission to use their Mark is not granted under the OSI model. Neither is any other Open Source project's grant. Your point is neither here nor there with respect of LICENSE TO THE CODE, which is what OSI's license compatibility applies to. Try creating GNUPHP or MicrosoftPHP - free or closed most projects treat their Marks protectively, and you would have hassles (legal or otherwise) with either using their Marks without their permission. No matter if it's stated in the license or not has little relation to Trademark law which has nothing to do with copyright law or patent law. None of the OSI licenses grant you permission to reuse their Mark for your purpose. Hi, By your rationale, the java extension should have had Sun up in arms to prevent the usage of their marks. The same goes for the PEAR package Spreadsheet_Excel_Writer, which explicitly contains the name of a Microsoft product. On the contrary, as you most likely know, there has not been a single complaint. The OSI license guidelines requires non-discrimination with regards to access to the *code*, not to the *name* of software. Let's look at the rationale for #5: /*Rationale:* In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources//. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process./// Key words here: to contribute to open sources. The PHP License fits this model. The PHP License (which btw needs to be updated to include 2007 in the copyright) requires only the copyright notice and a disclaimer (depending on distribution type) and then asks for written permission to use PHP in the name, even suggesting an alternative Foo for PHP. Any other reading is a clear and in my opinion unsavory distortion of the text. Thanks, Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Stefan Esser wrote: Hello Marcus, that's plain wrong what you wrote. First PHP license is OSI Approved and for that defintively does not violate any OSI recommendation. Besides that We will see how OSI explains how a discriminating license can be OSI approved. well, given that the Apache license has the very same restriction in it (there are minor wording differences and it obviously protects the term Apache instead of PHP) and that the Apache license was among the first to become OSI approved the explanation should be clear: discrimination is defined as discrimination in the use of the code, not the name. So you may not use this code for military purposes or this code may not be modified by left handed people would be discriminating by the OSI definition while you may not re-publish it using the same name or you may not re-publish it without copyright notices left intact are not ... If we were talking about GPL compatibility or the FSFs definition of Free Software instead of OSIs definition of Open Source Software things might be a bit different, but we aren't ... So please stop making a fool of yourself, you're riding a dead horse here and no matter how hard you beat it, it won't go any faster (or go at all) ... -- Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer. MySQL AB, www.mysql.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
I always found it strange so many projects use PHP in the name. PHPBB, PHPArchitect, PHP-Eclipse, PHPAccelerator, PHP Nuke, PHP Kitchen... If PHPBB/PHPnuke do not derive from code in PHP source itself, PHP group, as I understand it, can do next to nothing about it, since no distribution of materials that have copyright belonging to the PHP group is happening. Sounds like PHP should have been trademarked so that these projects AFAIK (not being a lawyer) defending trademark is quite bothersome - you actually *have* to go after all violators or your trademark is void. Meaning PHP Group would *have* to go after all authors of all phpWhatever which would lead to a lot of pissed off people and a lot of time wasted in stirring trouble instead of spending this time to do something useful. couldn't legally use the acronym without the consent of the PHP group or some other oversight group. I mean, PHPBB doesn't exactly help with the security image of PHP :/ I don't think names are the main problem here... -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
It's a bit of an edge case. I don't think I ever really considered CSS as being part of the PHP source code, but I suppose technically it is. Like I previously stated. The phpSecInfo program does not only steal PHP code and uses PHP in it's name, it also steals the layout of phpinfo, including the PHP.net logo+link. This is actually no suprise. The marketing consortium aka. PHP Security Consortium does everything to look endorsed by PHP.net. They also stole the PHP.net favicon for phpsec.org And the only reason noone goes against this is because these people are friends of the members of the PHP group. Stefan Esser -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
I think it's rather extreme to be directing any animosity towards Chris Shiflett on this particular issue, since while he leads that group, he isn't the lead for that project. I would also not that to the best of my knowledge (being on that team) that no one has attempted to bring it up with the people working on the tool. I'll bring it up on that mailing list. paul -- Paul Reinheimer
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Paul Reinheimer wrote: I think it's rather extreme to be directing any animosity towards Chris Shiflett on this particular issue, since while he leads that group, he isn't the lead for that project. I would also not that to the best of my knowledge (being on that team) that no one has attempted to bring it up with the people working on the tool. I'll bring it up on that mailing list. It's a bit of an edge case. I don't think I ever really considered CSS as being part of the PHP source code, but I suppose technically it is. From a bigger perspective, the reason we prefer people to not use the PHP name for their projects, especially modified versions of PHP itself, is that in the extreme case we want to avoid someone releasing PHP 7 on us. That would confuse a lot of people. For better or worse, if someone is using PHP they are using code we have control over, so when they report a bug or describe a problem we have a pretty good idea about how to go about fixing it. If they are using a heavily modified version of PHP, then it becomes much harder for us to figure out what is going on and by asking people to come up with their own brand for such modifications it becomes obvious to everyone involved that there is a different codebase involved. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:08:16AM +1100, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: From a bigger perspective, the reason we prefer people to not use the PHP name for their projects, especially modified versions of PHP itself, is that in the extreme case we want to avoid someone releasing PHP 7 on us. That would confuse a lot of people. For better or worse, if someone is using PHP they are using code we have control over, so when they report a bug or describe a problem we have a pretty good idea about how to go about fixing it. If they are using a heavily modified version of PHP, then it becomes much harder for us to figure out what is going on and by asking people to come up with their own brand for such modifications it becomes obvious to everyone involved that there is a different codebase involved. It is a difficult problem and we need to take care before adopting a stance on it, look what happened with the Debian firefox/iceweasle debacle. -Rasmus -- Alain Williams Linux Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php #include std_disclaimer.h -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Alain Williams wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:08:16AM +1100, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: From a bigger perspective, the reason we prefer people to not use the PHP name for their projects, especially modified versions of PHP itself, is that in the extreme case we want to avoid someone releasing PHP 7 on us. That would confuse a lot of people. For better or worse, if someone is using PHP they are using code we have control over, so when they report a bug or describe a problem we have a pretty good idea about how to go about fixing it. If they are using a heavily modified version of PHP, then it becomes much harder for us to figure out what is going on and by asking people to come up with their own brand for such modifications it becomes obvious to everyone involved that there is a different codebase involved. It is a difficult problem and we need to take care before adopting a stance on it, look what happened with the Debian firefox/iceweasle debacle. It's not really up for discussion. The decision was reached some 8+ years ago with the adoption of the clause in the license which is quite explicit. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 10:27 +1100, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Alain Williams wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:08:16AM +1100, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: From a bigger perspective, the reason we prefer people to not use the PHP name for their projects, especially modified versions of PHP itself, is that in the extreme case we want to avoid someone releasing PHP 7 on us. That would confuse a lot of people. For better or worse, if someone is using PHP they are using code we have control over, so when they report a bug or describe a problem we have a pretty good idea about how to go about fixing it. If they are using a heavily modified version of PHP, then it becomes much harder for us to figure out what is going on and by asking people to come up with their own brand for such modifications it becomes obvious to everyone involved that there is a different codebase involved. It is a difficult problem and we need to take care before adopting a stance on it, look what happened with the Debian firefox/iceweasle debacle. It's not really up for discussion. The decision was reached some 8+ years ago with the adoption of the clause in the license which is quite explicit. I always found it strange so many projects use PHP in the name. PHPBB, PHPArchitect, PHP-Eclipse, PHPAccelerator, PHP Nuke, PHP Kitchen... Sounds like PHP should have been trademarked so that these projects couldn't legally use the acronym without the consent of the PHP group or some other oversight group. I mean, PHPBB doesn't exactly help with the security image of PHP :/ Cheers, Rob. -- .. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `' -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Robert Cummings wrote: Sounds like PHP should have been trademarked [...] i don't know about the rest of the world, but here in .de you won't get a trademark on a 3 letter name anymore, and this has been so for quite a while, afaict since far before PHP came to light ... -- Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer. MySQL AB, www.mysql.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
whilst reading the thread on security issues in response to the article on the theregister.co.uk I came accross a remark by Stefan Esser aimed at Chris Shiftlett which I didn't understand, is this what he was referring to when he pointed a/the violation of the php license?: http://phpsec.org/images/phpsecinfo_ss.png 1. I don't feel strongly about the problem. 2. I don't want to stir any animosity towards phpsec or Chris Shiftlett (Im very grateful for all the things I have learnt form them/him) 3. Stefan Essers apparent feeling of ill treatment may be colouring his manner in terms of communicating this (and other) issue(s) BUT ... doesn't Stefan have a valid point with regards to the violation? if not I guess my understanding of the PHP licence and the PHP Group's policy is incorrect (I will make a go of rereading to correct that mistake) but I would have thought that someone would have, very quickly, offered up the reason(s) as to why there was no violation. if yes then I'm rather surprised that: a. the point was glossed over in favour of tackling Stefan's manner. b. Chris Shiflett (and/or phpsec) didn't spot the 'problem' and correct it proactively (I'm guessing, given his standing within the php community, Chris know where his towel is, so to speak) c. an amicable, behind the scenes solution was not crafted and implemented (I gather Chris is good friends with more than one of the members/founders of the PHP group) - in the spirit of portraying a consistent image/message to the outside world - at the end of the day changing a logo and colour scheme for the output of the tool in question is a rather minor technical challenge (it seems to me). I ask purely out of an insatiable curiosity with regard to anything that has to do with php, I'd be very for any comments anyone offer on this issue. It has not been my intention to offend anyone so I apologize in advance if I have inadvertently done so. kind regards, Jochem -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
http://phpsec.org/images/phpsecinfo_ss.png Yes it is exactly what I am talking about 1) CSS code is directly stolen from PHP source code (PHP licensed code) 2) Output functions are directly converted from C to PHP code 3) The PHP logo is used although it is clearly in violation with http://www.php.net/download-logos.php / Logo Licensing ... If in doubt, ask mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. However you should not use the logo in such a way, that it suggests that a particular person, company, course, etc. is endorsed by PHP.net. Stefan Esser -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
Hello Jochem, actually this should be discussed with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and only with group at php dot net. best regards marcus Saturday, January 20, 2007, 11:56:46 PM, you wrote: whilst reading the thread on security issues in response to the article on the theregister.co.uk I came accross a remark by Stefan Esser aimed at Chris Shiftlett which I didn't understand, is this what he was referring to when he pointed a/the violation of the php license?: http://phpsec.org/images/phpsecinfo_ss.png 1. I don't feel strongly about the problem. 2. I don't want to stir any animosity towards phpsec or Chris Shiftlett (Im very grateful for all the things I have learnt form them/him) 3. Stefan Essers apparent feeling of ill treatment may be colouring his manner in terms of communicating this (and other) issue(s) BUT ... doesn't Stefan have a valid point with regards to the violation? if not I guess my understanding of the PHP licence and the PHP Group's policy is incorrect (I will make a go of rereading to correct that mistake) but I would have thought that someone would have, very quickly, offered up the reason(s) as to why there was no violation. if yes then I'm rather surprised that: a. the point was glossed over in favour of tackling Stefan's manner. b. Chris Shiflett (and/or phpsec) didn't spot the 'problem' and correct it proactively (I'm guessing, given his standing within the php community, Chris know where his towel is, so to speak) c. an amicable, behind the scenes solution was not crafted and implemented (I gather Chris is good friends with more than one of the members/founders of the PHP group) - in the spirit of portraying a consistent image/message to the outside world - at the end of the day changing a logo and colour scheme for the output of the tool in question is a rather minor technical challenge (it seems to me). I ask purely out of an insatiable curiosity with regard to anything that has to do with php, I'd be very for any comments anyone offer on this issue. It has not been my intention to offend anyone so I apologize in advance if I have inadvertently done so. kind regards, Jochem Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?
On 1/20/07, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Jochem, actually this should be discussed with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and only with group at php dot net. [DISCLAIMER: I'm not taking side] This is far from being transparent to the eyes of the Open Source Community. Personnaly, I don't want to debate on this, but I surely want to be informed about it. Ahh politics.. Regards, Olivier -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
