ACCOUNT DEACTIVATED

2004-12-21 Thread at sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu
This account is no longer active. Thus, your mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.

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

2004-12-21 Thread Måns Rullgård
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

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-21 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > One suggestion: you might be able to make the necessary modifications to > BSD yacc, which I think descends from the original UNIX yacc by way of > BSD UNIX and the whole AT&T vs. BSD issue. In this particular case, the modifications consist of changin

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

2004-12-21 Thread Henning Makholm
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

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 upstream, but the > >> Debian maintainer wil

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-21 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:45:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > One suggestion: you might be able to make the necessary modifications to > > BSD yacc, which I think descends from the original UNIX yacc by way of > > BSD UNIX and the whole AT&T vs

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

2004-12-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
> > 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

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-21 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:45:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote >> In this particular case, the modifications consist of changing the >> output language from C to something else. That sounds fairly major; >> the entire parsing engine would have been h

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

2004-12-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
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

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

2004-12-21 Thread Matthew Palmer
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

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

2004-12-21 Thread Måns Rullgård
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

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

2004-12-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
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