[xdebug-general] Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> > >From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt):
> > 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"
> >
> > > This is a PITA, 'cause this effectively prevents a package with the name
> > > ``libxdebug-php4'' in the Debian archive, bugfixes, and similar. The
> > > sole effect of this clause will be You'll end up with a package/fork
> > > with a completely different name, that is pulling diffs from Your xdebug
> > > version. Kinda scratching Your ear with the wrong hand, isn't it?
> >
> > For all I know Debian's package would not be a derived product... so I
> > don't see the problem. It's not a problem for PHP either, is it? Besides
> > that, the package name should be php-xdebug (it works in both php4 and
> > php5) as it's just a normal extension, like the mysql extension.
>
> Thank You for a speedy reply!
>
> Well this is different: PHP is a trademark, X + debug is just a letter +
> a common word... And their wording is more specific, and on their
> webpage they make clear they just don't want the packages written in PHP
> to imply some connection with them. So Your fork of the engine might be
> called somehow (and the distros routinely does this).

I did not make any fork of the engine actually, and actually the license
was changed since I copied it for Xdebug adding the "You may indicate
that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP"
instead of calling it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"" part. Note that that line
was only added to make it more clear what the previous license meant.
This was always the intention already, and so for Xdebug.

> The Artistic license thing was a suggestion how to solve the problem
> when someone would pretend their patched version was the original: they
> will have to state clearly it isn't -- that's all.
>
> The crucial question is: which of these do You want to prevent from
> carrying the Xdebug's name?:
>
> (1) packges (You already said these are OK)
> (4) progs using portions of your code (say, one or two functions
> converted to a library)
> (5) documentation using snippets of your code (say, a book ``How to
> achieve the world domination using Xdebug'' by O'Reilly)

All above are fine.

> (2) patched versions (say, added commandline option or such)
> (3) heavily patched versions (say, a complete rewrite of the core
> engine)

I'd rather see people contributing to Xdebug then instead of creating
their own patches; it's silly and inefficient to have to maintain them
and if it's a good feature I'd be happy to put them in the main package.
If people want to do this without contributing back, then they should
not call their package Xdebug. (More strongly for point 5 then for 4 of
course).

> If you're OK with 1-5, then I'd suggest dropping the paragraph 4 or
> substituing with the stipulation that they state their version is not
> the original.

regards,
Derick

-- 
Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | xdebug-general@lists.xdebug.org