Hi David,
David Pirotte <da...@altosw.be> writes:
Hi Inan,
Ultimately, this kind of decision is a judgement call on the
part
of the committers reviewing the patches. In this case, the
concensus is clear that the Guix convention should be upheld.
Sorry to hear that [1], but I do not authorize guix to pick a
different
name, for its g-golf package - then the upstream (gnu project)
package
(and project) name that is.
As noted before, the name of the project has not been changed, and
the name used by its Guix package definition is part of the Guix
project itself. It was not "renamed," a suitable name was chosen
when the Guix package was created by Guix contributors. Your
purported authorization is irrelevant, as the name is within the
Guix project, not g-golf; and even if Guix had renamed the
project, such changes are explicitly permitted by g-golf’d LGPLv3
license.
Since you seem to be more devoted to maintaining the g-golf brand
than adhering to the spirit of the license, a closed-source
approach may be a better fit for your project -- though users are
free to fork the last Free Software version of g-golf and maintain
it independently, as allowed by its current LGPLv3 license.
Practically speaking, your choices at this time are to accept
the
conventions, or submit a patch removing g-golf from Guix.
Yes, I wish g-golf be removed from guix.
I'll submit a patch: please allow me to send the patch to this
list,
I not a guix-patches list member.
You don’t need to be a member to send a patch. Changes need to go
through the guix-patches list and debugs. Please see `guix
(Contributing)' in the Guix manual[1] for the process to follow.
Since this is library code, other packages in Guix may depend on
it; please take care to coordinate the impact of its removal.
Thanks,
-- Ian
[1]:
https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Contributing.html
