Re: Is this what Stefan Esser was referring to ...?

On 1/23/07, Gregory Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote:

Roman Neuhauser wrote: # greg@chiaraquartet.net / 2007-01-23 08:59:46 -0600:

Roman Neuhauser wrote:

php.net distributes programs that violate the PHP license: e. g. PHPUnit or PHPDocumentor (see http://pecl.php.net). If php.net is ok with ignoring the license terms (and has been for several years), does the license still mean sh!t?

Um wrong, phpDocumentor *EXPLICITLY* wrote php group and asked for permission to use php when we first switched to the php license years ago. Get your facts straight before posting rumors.

If I recall the discussions from several years ago correctly, the provisions to protect "PHP" were meant to prevent proliferation of programs written in PHP and called PHPthis of ThatPHP. So even if a special deal has allowed you to use "PHP" to endorse or promote PHPDocumentor, it is against the spirit of the license if not against the letter. I'd like to get permission to use PHP in the name of my MuchBetterDocumentor, where do I apply? ;) http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#5 Hi, If you would take a look at section 3 and 4 of http://php.net/license/3_01.txt

and 6. should matter too: 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following

    acknowledgment:
    "This product includes PHP software, freely available from
    <http://www.php.net/software/>".

phpDocumentor is distributed through php.net (pear). --Pierre