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

From: Derick Rethans <derick[@]xdebug.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:15:50 +0100 (CET)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Derick Rethans <derick[@]xdebug.org> wrote:
> >If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
> >If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
> >done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
> Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against those packages,
> because Debian is *violating the licenses*.
> >I am totally fine if people put it in distributions as php4-xdebug.
> >AFAIK freebsd's ports already have this, and so will Mandrake in the
> >forseeable feature. It would be silly of me to prohibit this, and this
> >is what IMO the license never intended to prohibit.
> Then why not fix the license?

This clause is perfectly acceptable as a part of the Apache 1.1 license.
As the Apache 1.1 license is OSI certified, and has certainly been used
by software distributed as a part of Debian, why would this clause cause
any problems in my license?

There is nothing broken with the license, so there is nothing to fix

> It's easy enough:
> Products derived from this software must not be called "Xdebug" without prior
> written permission from derick[@]xdebug.org. If they contain "Xdebug" in
> their names, they must clearly and prominently indicate that they are not the
> original Xdebug, unless prior written permission is obtained from
> derick[@]xdebug.org.
> Clauses like this are not troublesome, unlike the "must not contain Xdebug in
> their names" clause.

Find something that allows me to exclude people from using "Xdebug+" or
"RealXdebug" for names of derived products. That is exactly what I mean
with this clause. I don't see why this should render something non-free.
The source is free as you can get, I just do not want any confusion that
people might get if somebody makes a derived product and calls it
Xdebug+, as I as original author, will get silly support questions about

> (Does your statement that this package name is OK count as the "prior written
> permission" which is required, BTW?)

Of course, it's not a derived product, just a package with Xdebug in it.
As long as there are no strange patches that removes or adds
functionality (something that I feel distributions should NEVER do),
there should not be a problem as you're only delivering a 'pure' Xdebug
to users.


Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | xdebug-general@lists.xdebug.org
Received on Tue Dec 21 2004 - 00:15:55 GMT

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