<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/5/2020 12:06 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEOnoxwWj+ccAFfSMV8tvKWZnWbb_kvfjXf=knszgvy88Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi McCoy,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These are interesting questions.<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:04
AM McCoy Smith <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law"><mccoy@lexpan.law></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
1. Does this license, and it's predecessor PHP License 3.0,
satisfy the OSD, specifically OSD 3? I'm thinking
particularly about the following requirements:<br>
<br>
"4. Products derived from this software may not be called
"PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior
written permission from <a href="mailto:group@php.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">group@php.net</a>.
You may indicate that your software works in conjunction
with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it "PHP
Foo" or "phpfoo""<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My first instinct is to point out that registration is
not required to have an enforceable mark. PHP is pretty
well-known in its space, and so I wouldn't be surprised if
this provision were fully enforceable under common law
trademark provisions, and, if needed, the PHP project could
get a registration pretty quickly as the senior user.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
"6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the
following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP
software, freely available from <<a
href="http://www.php.net/software/" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.php.net/software/</a>>"."<br>
<br>
[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]<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
More broadly, I don't see a problem OSD #3-wise with
limitations on trademark rights, assuming that they don't
try to tramp on nominative use.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree wholeheartedly with Van. I read this as not allowing a
trademark use but allowing a nominative use, which is how I read the
Apache license too. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEOnoxwWj+ccAFfSMV8tvKWZnWbb_kvfjXf=knszgvy88Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
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]<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I foresee a future in which we have almost as many
approved licenses in the "legacy" category as there are
license variations labeled by SPDX. License proliferation is
a problem, but I am not sure it is *today's* problem.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't know that there is no software out there using 3.0. If they
is, why would they suddenly become "not open source" simply because
there is a later version of the license? <br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a></div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEOnoxwWj+ccAFfSMV8tvKWZnWbb_kvfjXf=knszgvy88Q@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>