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

From: Josh Triplett <josh.trip[@]verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:35:36 -0800

Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>>>[..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
>>>version number from the original software. [..]
>>>I didn't looked at the rest of the license, but I don't think this point
>>>renders xdebug non-free.
>>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
>>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for
> The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.

It could very well be a derivative; a manual might want to copy some of
the code for illustrative purposes, or copy various comments.

> Packaging for
> any kind of distribution is also no problem, as there is no derived
> product involved.

As mentioned in another of my messages to this thread, Debian packages
often contain differences from the upstream version.

- Josh Triplett

Received on Tue Dec 21 2004 - 04:37:31 GMT

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