Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
Derick Rethans <email@example.com> writes:
>> > Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
>> > excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
>> > names is not.
>> First of all, let me first say that I agree that DFSG4 can lead to
>> permitting rather annoying name change clauses, such as this one.
>> However, before you attack this particular wording, let me quote from
>> the Apache license:
>> > 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache",
>> > nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written
>> > permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
>> We might actually want to ship Apache... :)
> Right, this is where the PHP license was first copied from, and which
> I later copied. I just had to change the name of the license.
Clearly Debian does regard that license as free. I'm confused about
why a product derived from that is shipped a "apache".
Has anyone from Debian talked to the ASF about this?
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org