On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:41:04 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote: [...] > In https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00142.html you > agreed entirely that it is OK when software is made DFSG-free through > renaming to avoid trademark violations. > > What difference would it make whether our users are forbidden to change > the namespace back to "info.clearthought" due to > 1. trademark > 2. licence > 3. both
Hello Adrian, thanks for your prompt followup! I see an important difference between the case at hand and the Mozilla case. One thing is the requirement to change the *name* for the work: this is just how the work presents itself to the user, not something that really affects functionality/interoperability/interfaces/... Even if the name of the executable file of a program is changed, there are many ways to easily let the user invoke it by another name (symlinks, wrapper scripts, aliases, and so forth...). I think the requirement to change *namespace* for library classes is different: it affects the possibility to create modified drop-in replacements for the library, without having to adapt all the programs or other libraries that use the original library. The namespace looks like a functional aspect. I think it's not by chance that DFSG#4 accepts the requirements to change the *name* or the *version number*, but not the requirements to change other, more functional, labels in a package... I hope this clarifies. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpbU9ih8M40e.pgp
Description: PGP signature
