Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unfortunately, trademarks apparently don't work that way in civil law
> countries, and only arise through registration (with certain exceptions such
> as your own name).
Which are those countries? In Denmark, for instance, trademark rights
can be
> So can you say why
>it is a problem with my license, and not with Apache's and PHP's?
Nobody is going to say that, because we think it's a problem with all those
licenses.
It was a problem with Apache's license. It was not noticed for a long time.
Eventually it was noticed, and it was *fixed
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 software distributed as a part
An idea parallel to "fair use" is present in the Berne Convention,
under the name "fair practice":
Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work
which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided
that their making is compatible with fair practice, and th
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
>> >> >>"Bria
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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-par
me> Universal Commercial Code
s/Universal/Uniform/ (whoops)
This and other Model Acts, on which a lot of state laws in the US are
based, may be found at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc.htm .
Cheers,
- Michael
> > 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 binaries, exact copies of them)
> > -- even an
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 upstream, but the
> >> Debian maintainer wil
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 upstream, but the
>> Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without waiting for a
>> new upstr
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 n
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
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
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
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 licen
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Package: php4-xdbg
>>Description: debugging aid for PHP scripts, based on xdebug
>> Xdbg is a debugging aid for PHP scripts. It provides various debug
>> information about your script...
>> [further description]
>> .
>> The u
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:49PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Find something that allows me to exclude people from using "Xdebug+" or
> > "RealXdebug" for names of derived products. That is exactly what I mean
> > with this clause. I don't see why this should render something non-free.
> > The
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 software distributed as a part of Debian, why would this clause cause
> any probl
Derick -
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 binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
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 for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
> Absol
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
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 for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against thos
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > 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.
>>
>> First of all, let me first say that I agree that DFSG4 can lead to
>> permitti
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
Those debian people should really think of getting more software
engineers, not managers and laywers to help out. This would help the
distro more.
And their absurd abusive semantics of the word "free" is also
irritating. Do they really think that BSD is more "non-free" than GPL or
Artistic? (
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 "PHP", nor
> > may "
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 this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor
>>>may "Xdebug
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:27:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00023.html for
* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041220 04:28]:
> > Citing Debian Free Software Guidelines [1]:
> > =
> > 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. [..]
> > =
> The dif
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 "PHP", nor
> may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
>
> > 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"
Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> * Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
>
>> 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 n
Hi!
* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
> 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 PROTEC
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]
>
Hi.
I've been referred to xdebug on #postgresql @ freenode, but I will try
to avoid it because:
(1) It's not in Debian
(2) The license is non-free
Although the license is non-free as in annoying more then in
philosophical,
(3) It's not even in the Debian's non-free section
AFAICT, the only no
35 matches
Mail list logo
