L.S., On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> 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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > </quote> All I did was copy the PHP license and changed PHP to Xdebug... So it's just as free as PHP. Actually, this is just a BSD license with the advertising clause. Nothing non-free about it. Basically you can do everything what you want, except creating a product using Xdebug and naming it Xdebug. >From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt): 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" > This is a PITA, 'cause this effectively prevents a package with the name > ``libxdebug-php4'' in the Debian archive, bugfixes, and similar. The > sole effect of this clause will be You'll end up with a package/fork > with a completely different name, that is pulling diffs from Your xdebug > version. Kinda scratching Your ear with the wrong hand, isn't it? For all I know Debian's package would not be a derived product... so I don't see the problem. It's not a problem for PHP either, is it? Besides that, the package name should be php-xdebug (it works in both php4 and php5) as it's just a normal extension, like the mysql extension. > I did a little research on google, and it seems like some past versions > were licensed under the Artistic license. Its wording doesn't lead to > the abovementioned PITAs: > > <quote href=http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php"> > 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided > that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and > when you changed that file [...] > </quote> I don't want other people that use Xdebug to have to place a notice in their software, and Xdebug was never under any other license than the current one. > Would You consider altering the non-free clause, please? I think the current license is totally fine, it's about as free as you can get. Derick -- Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]