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. > Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against those packages, > because Debian is *violating the licenses*. > > >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 intended to prohibit. > Then why not fix the license?
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 problems in my license? There is nothing broken with the license, so there is nothing to fix really. > It's easy enough: > > Products derived from this software must not be called "Xdebug" without prior > written permission from [EMAIL PROTECTED] If they contain "Xdebug" in > their names, they must clearly and prominently indicate that they are not the > original Xdebug, unless prior written permission is obtained from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Clauses like this are not troublesome, unlike the "must not contain Xdebug in > their names" clause. 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 source is free as you can get, I just do not want any confusion that people might get if somebody makes a derived product and calls it Xdebug+, as I as original author, will get silly support questions about it. > (Does your statement that this package name is OK count as the "prior written > permission" which is required, BTW?) Of course, it's not a derived product, just a package with Xdebug in it. As long as there are no strange patches that removes or adds functionality (something that I feel distributions should NEVER do), there should not be a problem as you're only delivering a 'pure' Xdebug to users. regards, Derick -- Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
