Re: cvs: php4(PHP_4_2_0) / LICENSE

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I agree with Rasmus, that there's no good reason to call every app written > in PHP 'phpSomething'. PHP is a platform like all other platforms, and > much like you don't have C++Word or VBFoo, the same case applies to PHP. > Again, we have no plans to run after all of the PHP apps. But the general > idea is that PHP should not be a part of a product name, especially a > commercial one, without prior consent from the PHP group. > > If you do feel that you have to somehow denote that it's for PHP, Foo for > PHP or pFoo are fine alternatives. > I asked a similar question a couple of months ago on this list, and didn't get an answer. > > > > > + 4. 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 do not think that phpMyAdmin (or phpOpenTracker for that matter) are breaking any rules by naming their projects / products as such. The license above, as far as I know, is referring to the software called PHP, which is the source code for the engine/interpreted (whatever you want to call it) of the PHP language. IMHO projects that create software using the PHP language, and not the actual source code of the language' internals are not derived products, they just use the PHP language to write their software in. If we follow the logic of what you were saying in your previous email, then creating a simple PHP script with <?php echo 'hello'; ?> is somehow a derived work of PHP (the interpreter). Can someone shed some light into this issue ? Cheers, Joao