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

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

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Alexander Schmehl <alexander@schmehl.info> writes:
> >>* Jan Minar <jjminar@FastMail.FM> [041219 20:04]:
> >>>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>
> >>
> >>Citing Debian Free Software Guidelines [1]:
> >>=====
> >>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
> > Xdebug".
> >
> > 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.

> Just call the package "xdbg" or something similar, and point out in the
> description that the original software is called "xdebug", but that the
> name is changed as required by the license:

If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.

> Package: php4-xdbg
> Description: debugging aid for PHP scripts, based on xdebug
>   Xdbg is a debugging aid for PHP scripts.  It provides various debug
>   information about your script...
>   [further description]
>   .
>   The upstream version of Xdbg is called "Xdebug".  Since the Debian
>   version may contain bugfixes, patches, or other differences from the
>   upstream version, the Xdebug license requires Debian to use a
>   different name.

I am totally fine if people put it in distributions as php4-xdebug.
AFAIK freebsd's ports already have this, and so will Mandrake in the
forseeable feature. It would be silly of me to prohibit this, and this
is what IMO the license never intended to prohibit.

> Also note that the requirement to change the product name presumably
> does not extend to the actual module names and file names used in the
> package; those should be unchanged, so that PHP scripts which require
> Xdebug still work.

Of course, it would be "madness" if those are changed.


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

Reply to: