# Proposal for license change - Thread: https://externals.io/message/73504 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/73504 - Started by musicdenotation@gmail.com on 2014-04-01T22:27:05+00:00 - Messages: 5 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #73504 — musicdenotation@gmail.com — 2014-04-01T22:27:05+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/73504#73504 > 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. --- ## #73506 — johannes@schlueters.de — 2014-04-01T23:03:59+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/73504#73506 · In reply to: #73504 > > […] > "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 --- ## #73508 — johannes@schlueters.de — 2014-04-01T23:49:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/73504#73508 · In reply to: #73506 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. > 6. 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 --- ## #73509 — Kris Craig — 2014-04-02T00:35:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/73504#73509 · In reply to: #73508 On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > Hi, > > please don't top post - makes it harder to follow the discussion. > > > > […] > > 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) > > > […] > > 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. > > > […] > > 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 --- ## #73510 — johannes@schlueters.de — 2014-04-02T00:47:57+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/73504#73510 · In reply to: #73509 > 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