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
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 intended
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 derivative; a manual
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 binaries,
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 PHP appear
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:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may
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 think this
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
L.S.,
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=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]
9 matches
Mail list logo
