PHP is as general-purpose scripting language geared towards web development and often used in those contexts. Nevertheless it is not common known that the licensing behind the software is more out of a problem and making it more than only a lightweight issue packaging this for a free and libre operating-system.

Since version 8.6 of PHP the license changed towards the newer version 4 removing clauses 4, 5, and 6 of the PHP License, version 3.01. This makes it effectively identical to the Modified BSD License (BSD-3-Clause). Nevertheless the Modified BSD License itself stays a weak, permissive one and does not have the copyleft restrictions associated with licenses like the GNU GPL, making no commitment to share back modifications for everyone to see and use. The argumentation is and was that PHP could be used be a broader group of people. Yes, we can see and follow the point same, but we also clearly stand for free and libre software, with a clear perspective to share all modifications back.

To be clear: It is not possible to package PHP in versions before version 8.6 for a free and libre system without getting into trademark-issues when modifying without “explicit” permission. For the version 8.6 and later on it needs a review if a community-maintained package would be another valuable addition in the future.

Starting in the year 2000, the PHP authors have decided to remove the option to use PHP under the General Public License, so with beginning from PHP version 4. This left users with only the PHP License as an option, which is non-copyleft, but includes extra restrictions beyond most licenses.

 [...]

  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"

 [...]
 

(Source: PHP 3.01 License)

Those restrictions specifically related to use of the PHP name. Ultimately, such licensing makes extra work for system-distributions and operating-systems and creates uncertainty for people wishing to modify PHP - as they navigate a license that awkwardly pulls in a trademark policy as part of it.

In the whole outcome and as result PHP violates the freedom to redistribute without “explicit” approval.

So if we would do individual modifications corresponding our mission-statement, we would always have to ask and rename everything. That's a very harsh and aggressive restrictive usage of trademarks and therefore exactly trademark-bullying.

• Rebranding the entire language to avoid the trademark restriction. However, we would need patches to adapt all PHP-dependant applications to the rebranded version of PHP, since it is a programming language.

• Getting PHP to change its trademark agreement to allow modifications on the PHP binary for any purpose in respect of Freedom 3.

• Removal of PHP as the project is not following free, libre software.

Hyperbola has taken the decision to keep PHP complete out of the repositories, including also all applications possible using PHP. We decline this kind of “freedom” under the influence of trademark-bullying.

The Hyperbola-project decided to completely remove PHP from its packages since the release of version 0.4.3 for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre. We don't provide problematic packages and software not respecting the freedom of the users to modify their systems and sources as they want. A trademark-policy can lead to a complete false balance when organizations and people behind decide to withdraw rights at once as it is always part of that trademark. And this withdrawal would immediate lead to further legal issues for projects and systems including those names and software!