Stefano Zacchiroli <lea...@debian.org> > Going through the above, I suspect that the first provision (extending > DFSG §4) might be controversial. But the more I think of it, the more > convinced I am that it'd be in the spirit of the current wording of DFSG > §4, as hinted by the title of DFSG §4. In fact, renaming alone is > already the most common case of trademark-like restriction and agreeing > to extend it to visual marks wouldn't change anything in term of actual > restrictions on our users.
Yes, I think the first provision is a shame and I'm disappointed that we're not willing to go to bat for nominative use to include basic packaging for and integration with debian, even if it means patching the software. However, given the lawyer opinions that have been reported, I'm willing to accept it. I trust that we can still mention the upstream heritage names in descriptions, so that users can at least find the renamed software in search results. Of course, I'm very happy that silly things like function-renaming are generally not accepted, and that we keep on showing solidarity with derived distributions by not accepting debian-specific licences. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1rzpue-0003wr...@petrol.towers.org.uk
