On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:16:54 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem > > that has been neglected in recent discussions: > > > | 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] > > > The usual no-endorsement clause that we consider acceptable in BSD > > licenses and the like is different, because it talks about the name > > of the copyright holder or contributors, not about the name of the > > original work[1]. > > Why is that an important difference, in terms of freeness?
It seems to prohibit mentioning the name of the original work while
promoting a derivative version.
Maybe it's a freeness issue, I'm not sure, but I would like to hear the
opinion of the rest of debian-legal...
>
> > Clause #3 of the PHP License v3.01 forbids promoting derivative
> > works with sentences like "This product is based on PHP" or "This
> > product is a modified version of the famous PHP scripting language
> > interpreter", which are true and do not harm the PHP Group, AFAICS.
>
> I'm not sure this is a correct reading of "endorse or promote". "This
> product is based on PHP" is a factual statement, and implies no
> endorsement or promotion by the PHP Group.
It's not promotion *by* the PHP Group, but it's an example of use of the
name "PHP" to promote a product derived from the original software.
Without additional permissions, this seems to be forbidden, but at the
same time I kindof feel it as fair (and so I'm going to think it should
be allowed).
> In contrast, saying
> "supported by PHP" or "works with PHP" implies an endorsement.
>
> I agree that it's confusing to talk about "endorsement" by PHP when
> the name "PHP" alone refers only to software, not to a person or
> group. So that's a silly bug, but I'm not convinced it's a fatal one
> here.
But clause #3 does not say that "PHP" cannot promote derived products;
it says that *you* cannot use the name "PHP" to (endorse or) promote
derived products...
It seems a little broader to me.
Or am I wrong?
(The usual disclaimers: IANAL & IANANS
-- I Am Not A Lawyer & I Am Not A Native Speaker)
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpTpVFjiELbi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
