2012/4/4 Michael Hanke <m...@debian.org>: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:08:17PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: >> 2012/4/4 Benj. Mako Hill <m...@debian.org>: >> > I also think that the current text describing the trademark license >> > make it clear that re-packaging is fine while using the marks (it >> > says as much) so I don't forsee that this will be a problem getting >> > things into Debian. >> >> Yup, I agree with your POV here. I don't expect big problems from >> ftpmasters, I hope we're right :) > > A more fundamental issue could be a potential show stopper. Take a look > at the etoys package -- technically similar, FOSS license, but still in > non-free. Below a full quote from the source package's README.nonfree:
As long as the image itself is the source the preferred format for modification) and is included in the package with a free license, my opinion is that DFSG's are fulfilled. If ftpmasters don't see it that way, we'll have to push the conflict upwards. I don't plan on uploading it to non-free, as it is indeed a free package. Lets wait and see, though, and move from there when/if it happens. For the moment I'm more concerned about making it work with latest squeak-vm :) Greetings and thanks, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
