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

[Brendan Hickey]

The good news is you already have upgrade clause. You could exercise that
clause and create the PHP License 3.02 without the naming restrictions. Not
that I think this is necessary but it does provide a convenient trapdoor.

Brendan

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, 5:37 PM Ben Ramsey <ben at benramsey.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 5, 2020, at 16:03, McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
> >
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Ben Ramsey
> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 1:25 PM
> >>> To: License submissions for OSI review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Legacy Approval of PHP
> License 3.01
> >
> >>>> Perhaps a more salient example, which came to mind upon reflection on
> the early part of my career, was “PCI Hot Plug,” circa 1997
> >>>> There's at least one IT use of that acronym dated from at least the
> late Aughts:
> http://packet-lab.com/main/service-provider/ccip/item/89-mpls-penultimate-hop-popping.html
> >>> These are non-issues, IMO, since PCI Hot Plug and Penultimate Hop
> Popping aren't derivatives of PHP software.
> >
> > My point was more (similar to Richard's) one could write a PCI Hot Plug
> driver, or some code for Penultimate Hop Popping, based upon code licensed
> under PHP 3.01, but arguably be precluded from using the names "PCI Hot
> Plug" or "Penultimate Hop Popping" for that code.  Maybe a better example
> is PeachPie?
> >
> >>>> Or, suppose the Ceph project creates some sort of Kubernetes-related
> project called "cephpod" and suppose for some bizarre reason it uses a
> copyrightable snippet of PHP-licensed code.
> >>> This is definintely an interesting scenario. Hypothetically, this
> might be handled by requesting something to distinguish the name as not
> being “PHP." Perhaps "CephPod?"
> >
> > Yes, but in the absence of such an agreement, the license potentially
> bars you from using that name or variants of it, less you lose your
> copyright grant.  Is that a right result under OSD?
>
>
> I think everyone is raising good points and questions about the text of
> the license. I don’t think we should stop discussing these issues, but are
> they important to the extent that they would block legacy approval of the
> license as-is? The existing 3.0 license is OSI-approved and has these same
> clauses.
>
> If the answer is “yes, these issues could potentially block legacy
> approval,” then I’ll need to go back to the PHP internals team and discuss
> what that means for us and how we can fix it.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200305/f20649bc/attachment-0001.html>