Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The one thing that tickles something in my memory is the similarity > between this license and the Apache license, with regards to the > restriction on using the name with derived products. There seems to be > much controversy about the fact that our apache package could be in > violation of the letter of the Apache license on account of diverging > significantly from the upstream.
Naming issues do not, in and of themselves, impact DFSG freeness. The Apache issue is, IIRC, unresolved. But we know them, and so nothing horrible is likely to happen. The general rule is of course that we comply with such requirements. > A clarification from the author ahead of time as to whether a Debian > package would be allowed to use the name could save some grief in > the long-term. Sure, asking them never hurts.
