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 of Debian, why would this clause cause
> > any problems in my license?
>
> "That license is already in Debian", "that license is used by an important,
> high-profile project", and "{the FSF,OSI} likes the license" aren't very
> strong arguments for why a particular clause is free; they indicate that
> new issues in licensing are always being found, not that those issues
> aren't important.
No, but it shows how pedantic people can be. If it was not a problem to
get Apache and PHP into debian under the *same* license (just different
names), I can not see why Xdebug would be different. So can you say why
it is a problem with my license, and not with Apache's and PHP's?
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
