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

[Derick Rethans <derick@xdebug.org>]

L.S.,

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
> derick@xdebug.org.
> </quote>

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 [...]
> </quote>

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.

Derick

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