[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> >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.

Thank You for a speedy reply!

Well this is different: PHP is a trademark, X + debug is just a letter +
a common word...  And their wording is more specific, and on their
webpage they make clear they just don't want the packages written in PHP
to imply some connection with them.  So Your fork of the engine might be
called somehow (and the distros routinely does this).

The Artistic license thing was a suggestion how to solve the problem
when someone would pretend their patched version was the original:  they
will have to state clearly it isn't -- that's all.

The crucial question is: which of these do You want to prevent from
carrying the Xdebug's name?:

(1) packges (You already said these are OK)
(2) patched versions (say, added commandline option or such)
(3) heavily patched versions (say, a complete rewrite of the core
engine)
(4) progs using portions of your code (say, one or two functions
converted to a library)
(5) documentation using snippets of your code (say, a book ``How to
achieve the world domination using Xdebug'' by O'Reilly)

-- All of these are derived works.

If you're OK with 1-5, then I'd suggest dropping the paragraph 4 or
substituing with the stipulation that they state their version is not
the original.

If you're not OK with some of these, we'll explain to You why in fact
You are, and after few emails, You will OK them all, I promiss ;-)

Cheers,
-- 
 )^o-o^|    jabber: rdancer@NJS.NetLab.Cz
 | .v  K    e-mail: jjminar FastMail FM
 `  - .'     phone: +44(0)7981 738 696
  \ __/Jan     icq: 345 355 493
 __|o|__Minář  irc: rdancer@IRC.FreeNode.Net

Attachment: pgpRx9Vu0m9gA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: