On 07-Oct-2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 07 octobre 2008 à 12:48 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > Yes, we do need more detail; we need to know that *any* recipient > > of Debian can redistribute the work to anyone else, modified or > > unmodified, commercially or otherwise. (Or to know that these > > actions are not allowed, so that we can remove the package from > > Debian.) > > As for the "modified or unmodified", I think we have already > considered it acceptable to require a name change for significant > modifications made by third-party distributors. For example, though > I’m not sure, I think this is already the case for Apache.
I don't know whether you're saying Debian itself would be exempt from such a requirement. The Debian project's license to freely redistribute works, modified or unmodified, must not be specific to Debian as per DFSG §8. The license to do so must extend to all “third-party distributors” when they get the work from Debian. If the work will be modified in Debian, and if that would require a name change under the trademark license, presumably we have another “Firefox” → “Iceweasel” situation and would have to rename the work ourselves in order to redistribute it in Debian. It all depends on what the license terms actually require, though, so hopefully we can get answers from upstream. > I’ll ask for clarifications about the rest. Thanks. -- \ “Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without | `\ having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it | _o__) too?” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
