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"
I propose removing this clause from the PHP license for GPL compatibility. My proposal is to make PHP a trademark (as Python is), because trademark law is intended to deal exactly with this issue. I'm completely happy with the current license, but I propose this as an improvement.
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"
I propose removing this clause from the PHP license for GPL
compatibility. My proposal is to make PHP a trademark (as Python is),
because trademark law is intended to deal exactly with this issue. I'm
completely happy with the current license, but I propose this as an
improvement.
It is not that trivial. A few quick thoughts:
* Getting a trademark for three letters isn't trivial, most
trademark authorities limit those to few cases like BMW or SAP.
We could probably prove PHP's relevance but still effort
* Unlike Python we have no legal entity which could own it. We
could only register it to a natural person (i.e. Rasmus)
* We have no fundings to finance the registration (registration
fees, lawyer to do the bureaucracy etc)
* The thing with GPL compatibility is partly a religious thing --
Mind GPL's virality: If one component is GPL all other parts
become GPL, too. So if we'd lateron start bundling GPL code we
are on a sword's edge of becoming GPL. This becomes really
complicated with extensions for commercial libraries. Some
contributors also have stronger objections to GPL.
* We make use of other components which probably aren't
GPL-compatible licensed either, see i.e. php-src/main/spprintf.c
* Such a drastic change might require collecting permission from
all past contributors. Some of them are hard to reach.
johannes
Hi,
please don't top post - makes it harder to follow the discussion.
1, 2, 3. Zend?
Nope.
(well 3 (funding) they could, if they want, which I don't know and don't
care; if there would be interest in going through that bureaucracy this
would be solvable ... but I don't see such interest in the contributors
community, I know there wasn't some years ago, maybe that changed, while
I have strong doubts)
4, 5. GPL compatibility is for users to use PHP in a GPL-licensed
project, not for PHP developers to include GPL-licensed code in their
PHP project.
This always goes both ways. And mind: Even if we would strike this out
of the PHP License you couldn't use PHP in GPL software easily. see i.e.
the spprintf case I mentioned, or other places (see README.REDIST.BINS
for a start) where we use foreign code. This would need to be replaced
to become GPL-compatible.
- group@php.net may license the mark unconditionally for licensees to
achieve the same effect as "removing the clause".
This becomes a complicated legal debate, especially while observing
international copyright and related law. There is no formal copyright
assignment. An interpretation is that currently code is donated under
PHP License terms. Significant (or actually even any) changes might void
that.
johannes
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Johannes Schlüter johannes@schlueters.dewrote:
Hi,
please don't top post - makes it harder to follow the discussion.
1, 2, 3. Zend?
Nope.
(well 3 (funding) they could, if they want, which I don't know and don't
care; if there would be interest in going through that bureaucracy this
would be solvable ... but I don't see such interest in the contributors
community, I know there wasn't some years ago, maybe that changed, while
I have strong doubts)4, 5. GPL compatibility is for users to use PHP in a GPL-licensed
project, not for PHP developers to include GPL-licensed code in their
PHP project.This always goes both ways. And mind: Even if we would strike this out
of the PHP License you couldn't use PHP in GPL software easily. see i.e.
the spprintf case I mentioned, or other places (see README.REDIST.BINS
for a start) where we use foreign code. This would need to be replaced
to become GPL-compatible.
- group@php.net may license the mark unconditionally for licensees to
achieve the same effect as "removing the clause".This becomes a complicated legal debate, especially while observing
international copyright and related law. There is no formal copyright
assignment. An interpretation is that currently code is donated under
PHP License terms. Significant (or actually even any) changes might void
that.johannes
--
I believe this discussion breaks down into two separate yet equally
important (cue Law & Order sound here) categories: The merits of the idea
itself and the legal feasibility (or lack thereof) of implementing it.
Merits: I think it's a great idea. The "PHP" name usage restriction is
outdated and pointless. Numerous projects already exist that have been
allowed to use it by permission, such as phpMyAdmin. Since PHP has no
single "owner", permission is as simple as just posting to the general list
and an indeterminate number of people responding with something along the
lines of, "Sure, knock yourself out." In other words, it's become a
confusing and useless formality. That provision remains a thorn in the
side of PHP existing as a truly FOSS-compatible project, at least in
principle. And, as far as I know, that provision does absolutely nothing
for us.
Legal: I can't really speculate much on this one as I'm not a legal
expert. I imagine the same applies to most people here. There are many
attorneys out there who specialize in this sort of thing. I'm pretty sure
there are also among them a good number who volunteer their time for OSS
consultations regarding matters such as this.
In fact, the Electronic Frontier Foundation provides pro bono legal
assistance for this very purpose. More info here:
https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance
It might not be a bad idea to ask them about this and see if they'd be
willing to lend us some much-needed legal consultation on this for free.
Thoughts?
--Kris
Merits: I think it's a great idea. The "PHP" name usage restriction
is outdated and pointless. Numerous projects already exist that have
been allowed to use it by permission, such as phpMyAdmin.
Users of PHP aren't affected of this license clause. Legally this only
is a question for people linking PHP licensend source in their code. (to
be precise: When "redistributing [code etc. which is licensed under the
terms of the PHP License, essentially the C source file, in] any form
whatsoever") In other cases we only ask users in a legally not binding
way not to use the name PHP for the projects.
See http://www.php.net/license/#faq-lic
johannes