[License-review] Request for Legacy Approval of PHP License 3.01

Russell Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Thu Mar 5 18:08:45 UTC 2020

On 3/5/20 11:03 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:

>    "4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from group at 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""
> This seems to me a bit problematic given it's (AFAIK) not a registered trademark of the software authors. It appears to be restricting certain modifications of the software or the way that licensees may present modified versions of that software.
Given that trademarks are very particular to each country (there being 
no trademark equivalent of the Berne Convention), we are agnostic to 
them. They advance the goal of encouraging distribution because it 
clarifies what software has been modified and what software has merely 
been reproduced without change.
>    "6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP software, freely available from <http://www.php.net/software/>"."
> [BTW: I understand that similar sorts of provisions exist in other OSI-approved licenses; I'm raising the question of whether the general idea of mandatory modification restrictions or mandatory pseudo-trademark acknowledgement obligations are consistent with the OSD]
It's perfectly fine to require a different name on modified software. 
It's perfectly fine to require that you acknowledge the source of the 
software. These are time-honored traditions for open source software 
> 2. If this version is approved, will the steward voluntarily deprecate version 3.0, and if not, and if 3.01 is approved, should 3.0 be involuntarily deprecated?  I can imagine a scenario where the license list is filled with innumerable dot-releases of license upgrades unless a practice like that is adopted. [Yes, and I know that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are both on the list, but given the substantial differences between the two, that seems to me a different case]
Licenses used by only a single work which have been obsoleted by a newer 
license should be deprecated by default.

More information about the License-review mailing list