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

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

Derick Rethans wrote:
> 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.

It could very well be a derivative; a manual might want to copy some of
the code for illustrative purposes, or copy various comments.

> Packaging for
> any kind of distribution is also no problem, as there is no derived
> product involved.

As mentioned in another of my messages to this thread, Debian packages
often contain differences from the upstream version.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: