Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 20:25 +, Gervase Markham wrote: > The attitude which came across in your email seemed to be "We're the big > and important Debian project, and we've been violating your licence, > which is a bit of a shame, but please tell us we can keep doing so, > otherwise we'll yank

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

Michael Below wrote: Here's the license except that left us wondering: 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 w

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

Hi, I'm new to this list, so maybe I should introduce myself. I'm a Debian user since 1.3 (or something like that, my first CD set is 2.0). I live in Berlin/Germany, and I have studied law. Currently I am a "Rechtsreferendar", that's something like a mandatory trainee phase before one is allowed t

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

Martin Schulze wrote: I've sent this letter to the PHP group: Dear authors, we are a group of developers that build up an entire GNU/Linux system based on the Linux kernel, GNU utilities and a lot of other software. It is named Debian GNU/Linux

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

Martin Schulze wrote: > I've been informed about details of the PHP license: > > For php3: > > 5. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products > derived from this software without prior written permission > from the PHP Development Team. This does not apply to add-o

Re: latex2html goes GPL? [was: Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:45:21PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Actually, a simple email from the upstream author has been considered in > the past to be sufficient authorization for a license change. If > upstream were to send an email saying something to the effect of "I > hereby relicense all