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

2004-12-22 Thread Derick Rethans
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 12:15:50AM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: > > This clause is perfectly acceptable as a part of the Apache 1.1 license. > > As the Apache 1.1 license is OSI certified, and has certainly been used > > by soft

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

2004-12-21 Thread Derick Rethans
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > > >> Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream > >> versions. (These patches are generally sent upst

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

2004-12-21 Thread Derick Rethans
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > The trouble, I think, is that "derived product" has a legal meaning > (in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense > interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code > you distribute (or, if you distribute binarie

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

2004-12-21 Thread Derick Rethans
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>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 > >>Xdebug". > > > > The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product. > > It could very well be a de

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

2004-12-21 Thread Derick Rethans
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > > 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 in

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

2004-12-20 Thread Derick Rethans
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 fo

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

2004-12-20 Thread Derick Rethans
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 th

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

2004-12-20 Thread Derick Rethans
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]: > >>>AFAICT, the only non-free section is: > >>> > >>>http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";> > >>>4. Products derived from thi

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

2004-12-20 Thread Derick Rethans
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote: > > >From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt): > > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called

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

2004-12-19 Thread Derick Rethans
L.S., On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote: > AFAICT, the only non-free section is: > > 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] >