Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > 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
The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product. Packaging for
any kind of distribution is also no problem, as there is no derived
> 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.
It's just one class of names, the class that has "Xdebug" in the name.
Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | email@example.com