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

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

Those debian people should really think of getting more software engineers, not managers and laywers to help out. This would help the distro more.

And their absurd abusive semantics of the word "free" is also irritating. Do they really think that BSD is more "non-free" than GPL or Artistic? (Please don't answer on that. We had that.)

Derick Rethans schrieb:
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

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 [...]

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.
Reini Urban

Reply to: