On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:29:22AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: > Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > >However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and > >version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to > >require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this > >exception for software coming in, why can't we accept this same exception > >for software derived from our distribution?
I don't think we can extend the exception to package name, if only for practical reason. > I would say, though, that given the great ease with which one can > rebrand Firefox (see below for evidence), which is probably easier than > almost any other existing application of comparable size due to the > Netscape heritage and their need to rebrand, I don't think that it would > be significantly limiting downstream freedoms if we said they had to > change the name (or ask us) for *all* modifications. After all, that's > what some packages whose licenses have name-change clauses say. An important point of contention is whether the branding affect the package name (the name of the .deb file), because this is a functionnal name and changing it is a burden. If it does, then we might be better off renaming the package to iceweasel even if we keep the firefox branding. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
