This was debated today for a number of hours on IRC, and we were requested to post comments here, so I'm doing it but only as a DD, not on behalf of Debian or anything like that, I hope you find this helpful.
The DFSG allows an author to require a name change when certain program is changed. It *doesn't* allow the author to say how the name should be changed, and most importantly, it *doesn't* allow the author to _PREVENT_ name changing. Thus, the license should not prevent name changing for it to be considered free. As was suggested on IRC, replacing a must with a should on 2a) and 2c) might be enough for this. The clarification of what is and what isn't a substantially changed version (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-licence/+bug/655096) should also be addressed. Maybe changing the name is already a substantial change, thus allowing name changing without any further modification to the license? BTW, I fail to see how this bug could be invalid. Naming restrictions *are* considered non-free. And will be considered non-free until fixed. How is this an invalid bug? -- Regards, Marga -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769874 Title: Naming restrictions in UFL considered non-free by Debian -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
