[SOLVED] Using the word PHP in a PHP Application

[Liquid Fire]

I am getting ready to release my first publicly available alpha version of my framework and have a question about naming.  I know in the PHP license it states:

 

"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"

 

This only refers to products that actually use the PHP source in source or binary form, correct?  That framework does not include the PHP,it only uses PHP to work which means I could not have to get permission from group@php.net to include PHP in the name of my framework?  I know there are a number frameworks that use PHP in their name like CakePHP but not sure if there did get permission.  Just asking what people know about the license, not asking for real lawyer advice.

 

I did send an email to group@php.net but really want to get this first alpha out A.S.A.P.

[corbin]

" That framework does not include the PHP,it only uses PHP to work"

 

 

What in the world do you mean?  How can it not have PHP in it, but it uses PHP to work?

 

 

Since that's in the PHP license, it basically means you can't legally use the PHP engine if you put PHP in the product name without written permission.  And of course, without the PHP engine you're files are all useless.

 

 

As for things like CakePHP and PHPNuke, I'm not sure if they have permission or not.  I mean I can see where a framework would be less of a big deal than something else.  For example, PHPForums or something like that could imply that they're associated with PHP, and if the code sucks that could reflect on the PHP people, but with a framework or something, it wouldn't have to be in a product named the same as the framework (and actually wouldn't be).

 

 

Basically I would ask, and don't be surprised if they say no.

[Daniel0]

What in the world do you mean?  How can it not have PHP in it, but it uses PHP to work?

 

There is nothing preventing you from implementing the PHP syntax and standard library yourself. It's exactly the same thing as gcc is not "in" your code if you write something in C. Only there exist multiple C compilers of course.

 

There is a significant difference between being a derivative of something and just using it.

[corbin]

What in the world do you mean?  How can it not have PHP in it, but it uses PHP to work?

 

There is nothing preventing you from implementing the PHP syntax and standard library yourself. It's exactly the same thing as gcc is not "in" your code if you write something in C. Only there exist multiple C compilers of course.

 

There is a significant difference between being a derivative of something and just using it.

 

 

Hrmmm, I did not think of it like that.  So you're saying technically scripts might not be considered a derivative of the PHP engine because something besides the PHP engine could be used to run them?  (Or simply because of the fact that the PHP engine and scripts are not technically directly tied.)

 

 

 

So basically you're saying that the PHP license is saying that you can't make something called PHP2 or something that builds on the PHP source code?  That would make more sense.

 

 

I would still think that the PHP people would not want a ton of PHP scripts out there with PHP in the name, but I do agree with what you're saying.  I was thinking of using it as a derivative.  After all, it is a little bit different than C code and gcc....  There's hundreds of C compilers (although only a few popular ones), but there's only 1 thing I know of that can PHP files....  I guess there's always that potential though.

[Liquid Fire]

I guess i will wait to hear back from the php group.  I guess I will in the meantime try to figure out another good name

[.josh]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that if your script is using php to run that constitutes as "deriving from the software"  While I may somewhat possibly agree with Dan that technically if you made your own compiler using the same syntax you might possibly get away with it, but a) I'm not so sure you would get away with that, b) that's not applicable anyways, as clearly that is not the case here.

[Liquid Fire]

The way I look at it is that would you say that a image I create in Photoshop a secured piece of work?  Techincally when I release my framework, I am not releasing the php software in binary or source form, I am just releasing the source php runs.

[Daniel0]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that if your script is using php to run that constitutes as "deriving from the software"  While I may somewhat possibly agree with Dan that technically if you made your own compiler using the same syntax you might possibly get away with it, but a) I'm not so sure you would get away with that, b) that's not applicable anyways, as clearly that is not the case here.

 

No, because that would make all programs written to run on Windows derivatives on Windows, but you are not allowed to release Windows derivatives either.

[.josh]

but we're talking about using a copyrighted name as part of the name for his program, not the program itself.

[zq29]

The way I see it, is that a script (or collection of) is not a derivative of the interpreter in any way or form. I think they're talking about someone using the source code of PHP itself and then using "PHP" in the name for whatever it is that was built using the code.

 

I can't imagine that all of these packages floating around on the web with "PHP" in their title have gained permission for it, but that doesn't make it right. If "PHP" is trademarked, registered or copywritten, you should be asking to use it in any form. But I can't imagine it is, as they're not doing to well at protecting it. Did we get permission to use it in our website name? I doubt it.

[Liquid Fire]

Well I did find my answer here:

 

http://www.php.net/license/index.php#faq-lic

[corbin]

Hahaha wow....  I love how they name names in that.