Soren Stoutner dijo [Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:08:22PM -0700]: > > The following paragraph has been added by the author: > > > > <snip> > > If you copy or distribute a modified version of this Software, the > > entire > > resulting derived work must be given a different name and distributed > > under > > the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. > > <snip> > > > > Except that it is a pure MIT license. Could that cause issues? > > I have copied the Debian Legal mailing list as this question is most directed > toward their expertise. > > My initial impression is that this custom addition to the license isn’t a DFSG > problem. It contains two parts: > > 1. It requires that any derivatives be given a different name. This is > similar to trademark restrictions. Many, many packages in Debian have > trademark restrictions that require derivatives to have different names (so > end users are not confused as to which is the original package) and that is > not considered a DFSG problem.
Hmmm... That does IMO look problematic. If not legally, practically. If "this exact same license" is required, then if I modify and redistribute foo, I might name it foo-gw. But if I then modify foo-gw, need I rename it foo-gw-newer? Should I include a version name as part of the item's name? Would conflating version numbers with the program name constitute a different name? But, yes, that's basically my mind wandering off in nonproductive directions. > 2. It requires that derivatives must use the same license. That isn’t a > standard part of a MIT (Expat) license, but it is a standard part of other > DFSG licenses (like the GPL), so I don’t think it would be a DFSG problem. So, this paragraph tries to make the MIT license into a Copyleft / Viral licensing scheme. This is counter to what most people believe the main point of the MIT licenses to be! Maybe it is not against the DFSG, but it leads users to perform mind games they should not have to.
