Re: Advice needed for a strange request about getmail vs. getmail6
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:25 PM Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:40:48AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > To give a brief history, Debian had "getmail" which was based on
> > > Python2 and was removed. Then there was a fork available named
> > > "getmail6" which was based on Python3. A transitional package linked
> > > them by #979060.
> > >
> > > Now, the upstream of "getmail" has raised a bug in Debian asking
> > > "getmail6" to be removed or renamed and he claims that users of
> > > getmail6 are imposing a support burden on him as users are thinking it
> > > to be getmail and mailing the getmail mailing list. #996569
> > >
> > > I went through the getmail mailing list archive and could find only
> > > one such mail. I am not sure what to reply to him, and need your
> > > suggestions about what to do now please.
> > Debian is a wrong place to do this.
> > And if not for the trademark violation claims I'd suggest ignoring this.
> > But the claims should be directed to the upstream first.
Thanks, I will forward the bug upstream.
But incidentally, I was searching the trademark database and it seems
"getmail" is a trademark registered by "Blue Cube Solutions Limited"
in UK.
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003129080
Not sure if "getmail" now should be using the name "getmail" as its a
registered trademark of another company. :)
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=996569 IS opened
> by the upstream author.
>
> In https://marc.info/?l=getmail&m=163440038426857&w=2
> is Charles Cazabon, upstream author, expressing that
> the poorly named fork of getmail should get a name without
> the string 'getmail'.
>
> In thread https://marc.info/?t=163411972300003&r=1&w=2 you find
> also the author of the fork, Roland Puntaier.
>
>
> Back to the core of the bugreport, getmail vs getmail6.
>
> <opinion>
> getmail6 was a good idea.
> time did learn us it was too optimistic.
> </opinion>
Why is it too optimistic? imho, getmail6 is a good package which has
good upstream support. Roland had been very prompt in fixing any bug
report that I or anyone else has reported.
>
>
> <problem>
> the name getmail6
> </problem>
>
>
> Solution would be a different name.
And, this is what I fail to understand. Why is the name a problem?
getmail and getmail6 are different packages. Its the transitional
package which let the users of getmail use getmail6 when they upgraded
to Bullseye.
>
> When no one comes with a different name,
> is removal of getmail6 from the Debian archive the next best thing.
And, this is also another point which I am failing to understand. How
does the removal of getmail6 help Bullseye?
--
Regards
Sudip
Reply to: