Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to >>>change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or >>>hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant >>>barrier to modification. >> >> No it's not. Go ahead and try to change all the instances of Mozilla >> in Mozilla. Observe that several of them are not plain text, but >> image files containing clever renderings of the text "Mozilla". You >> get the image-changing problem anyway, because people can draw >> pictures of text. > > When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change > every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified > version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the > extent names have been incorporated into functional parts of the work, > *which includes a requirement to change an image, as well as doing a > global s/Mozilla/other/g*, I do not consider it Free to require them to > be changed, and I do not believe it is covered under DFSG4.
I don't think you're reading DFSG4 at all. If the program identifies itself at start up, that's clearly its name -- much more clearly so than its package name or some secret word known only to its author.. > We have covered similar requirements in other licenses as well: there > was a license that made the requirement that on request, you must purge > the name of the author entirely from the work. I think that was from > one of the Creative Commons licenses. That requirement was considered > non-free as well. Sure. I didn't say you have to purge the word "mozilla" from Mozilla. Just that you can't *use it as a name*. > (Personally, this argument is further strengthening my opinion that > DFSG4 has little redeeming value, and that we would be better served by > striking it entirely; there are many who share this opinion, and many > who have expressed it on this list. In addition to the earlier problems > that have been noted, it is apparently also confusing and ambiguous to > some.) See, this is convincing me that maybe DFSG 4 isn't a total loss... -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
