Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
> > Jeff Licquia <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
> > > renaming "foo.c" to "bar.c" doesn't really affect your rights, and is
> > > mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Why is this obviously OK? DFSG #4 allows people to mandate the change
> > of the name of the work. Requiring name changes of files is too
> > granular.
On 22 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> It's not expressly forbidden or expressly allowed, so we have to figure
> out if it's OK or not. As I mentioned, it doesn't seem onerous as a
> requirement; just an mv/cp and a few Makefile edits.
I'm with Walter here. It's not "obviously OK", though it's not obviously
unfree either. If it's ONLY renaming of foo.c AND there aren't many files
that depend on the name of foo.c, we would likely put up with it. If it's
renaming foo.c, bar.c, lala.h, and Makefile, or if there are dozens of
references in config scripts to foo.c it's a lot less free.
I'd say the same of the fileutils example. If "ls" was reserved for
original versions, I'd pass it. If dozens of files needed renaming, it
would be a lot less clear.
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org