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

From: Reini Urban <rurban[@]x-ray.at>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:18:09 +0100

Those debian people should really think of getting more software
engineers, not managers and laywers to help out. This would help the
distro more.

And their absurd abusive semantics of the word "free" is also
irritating. Do they really think that BSD is more "non-free" than GPL or
Artistic? (Please don't answer on that. We had that.)

Derick Rethans schrieb:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
>>AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
>><quote href="http://www.xdebug.org/license.php">
>>4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor
>>may "Xdebug" appear in their name, without prior written permission from
> All I did was copy the PHP license and changed PHP to Xdebug... So it's
> just as free as PHP. Actually, this is just a BSD license with the
> advertising clause. Nothing non-free about it. Basically you can do
> everything what you want, except creating a product using Xdebug and
> naming it Xdebug.
>>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.
>>I did a little research on google, and it seems like some past versions
>>were licensed under the Artistic license. Its wording doesn't lead to
>>the abovementioned PITAs:
>><quote href=http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php">
>>3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided
>>that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and
>>when you changed that file [...]
> I don't want other people that use Xdebug to have to place a notice in
> their software, and Xdebug was never under any other license than the
> current one.
>>Would You consider altering the non-free clause, please?
> I think the current license is totally fine, it's about as free as you
> can get.

Reini Urban
Received on Mon Dec 20 2004 - 11:18:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 25 2018 - 06:00:04 BST