Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
Derick Rethans <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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.
Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against those packages,
because Debian is *violating the licenses*.
>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.
Then why not fix the license?
It's easy enough:
Products derived from this software must not be called "Xdebug" without prior
written permission from email@example.com. If they contain "Xdebug" in
their names, they must clearly and prominently indicate that they are not the
original Xdebug, unless prior written permission is obtained from
Clauses like this are not troublesome, unlike the "must not contain Xdebug in
their names" clause.
(Does your statement that this package name is OK count as the "prior written
permission" which is required, BTW?)