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

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

Derick Rethans <derick@xdebug.org> 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                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: