On Tue, 2019-12-31 at 20:01 +0000, Ximin Luo wrote: > Ben Hutchings: > > On Tue, 2019-12-31 at 16:39 +0000, Ximin Luo wrote: > > > Ben Hutchings: > > > > On Tue, 2019-12-31 at 04:31 +0000, Ximin Luo wrote: > > > > > Package: wnpp > > > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > Owner: Ximin Luo <infini...@debian.org> > > > > > > > > > > * Package name : rust-spotify-tui > > > > > Version : 0.11.0 > > > > > Upstream Author : Alexander Keliris <rigell...@gmail.com> > > > > > * URL : https://github.com/Rigellute/spotify-tui > > > > > * License : MIT or Apache-2.0 > > > > > Programming Lang: Rust > > > > > Description : Spotify for the terminal written in Rust > > > > > > > > Why is the implementation language relevant for an application > > > > package? > > > > > > > > > > I just copied upstream's github repo description. > > > > You also added "rust-" to the package name. > > > > This is just the convention we have for source-package names that are > automatically packaged by our "debcargo" packaging tool. The binary- > package name does not have the "rust-" prefix, so users would just > type "apt install spotify-tui".
I still don't think it makes sense to include a language prefix/suffix in an application package name, but if it's only in the source package that doesn't matter. > I was under the impression that we should use source-package names in > wnpp bugs. That's correct. > > > > Also, including Spotify in the name might be a trademark > > > > violation. > > > > > > > > > > IANAL but there's lots of other similar examples of a tool that > > > interfaces with a service S being called "something-S-something", > > > e.g. "calendar-google-provider". The description is pretty clear > > > that > > > this is not an official spotify product. If the law actually has > > > a > > > problem with this, I'd be at a loss to think of how we could > > > possibly > > > name such a tool *without* referring to "S" verbatim in the name. > > > Prefix everything with "unofficial"? I've never seen that in any > > > other FOSS project. > > > > I am also NAL, but have seen a lot of trademark complaints in the > > software world. It is generally OK to use other companies' > > trademarks > > for "nominative use", e.g. to say that my product X works with Y. > > However, using another company's trademark at the beginning of a > > product name risks confusion and is more likely to result in, at > > least, > > legal threats. > > > > In this case, Spotify should definitely be mentioned in the package > > description, and maybe at the end of its name, but the package > > probably > > needs some distinct name. > > > > Well, this is more a matter for upstream - I can't just unilaterally > rename someone else's program. Yes, I realise that. > If you or others have some reasonable and detailed arguments on why > they should change their name, I would be happy to forward that or > you could do so yourself... You are welcome to send my previous comments upstream. > Then there is the question of all of the existing packages in Debian > that have this similar issue. That's not a good reason to add to a potential problem. > Also I'd expect that if Spotify were to complain, they would complain > to upstream rather than Debian, since we cannot reasonably be > expected to unilaterally rename someone else's tool. Adding the package to Debian increases its prominence and the likelihood that it will come to their attention. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
