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
- I don't feel strongly about the problem.
- 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) - 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
Yes it is exactly what I am talking about
- CSS code is directly stolen from PHP source code (PHP licensed code)
- Output functions are directly converted from C to PHP code
- 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:logos@php.net. 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
Hello Jochem,
actually this should be discussed with group@php.net 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?:
- I don't feel strongly about the problem.
- 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)- 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
Hello Jochem,
actually this should be discussed with group@php.net 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
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
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
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
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.
That's a decision for PHP Group to make. 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.
Ilia Alshanetsky
ilia@prohost.org / 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.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:
- Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from group@php.net. [...]
[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
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
ilia@prohost.org / 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
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
ilia@prohost.org / 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
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
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
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
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
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
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
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
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 source....in 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
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
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 source....in 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
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 thatWe 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 hasI 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 source....in 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
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
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 thatWe 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
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.
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
greg@chiaraquartet.net / 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
Hello,
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
group@php.net as always. Like it or not, that does not change anything :)
--Pierre
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
greg@chiaraquartet.net / 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
-
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 group@php.net. -
Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from group@php.net. 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 group@php.net (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
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
greg@chiaraquartet.net / 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:
- 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
Alain Williams 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
Alain Williams 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. |
`------------------------------------------------------------'
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
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
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
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