Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes: >>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> >>>We allow others to specify that if their work is modified, the >>>modifier must change the name. We try to narrowly tailor such clauses >>>when they're proposed, but we do allow it. The logo is Debian's name >>>-- just not in English. It represents Debian just as much as the >>>word "Debian" does. So even by a copyright license, we'd allow others >>>to insist that their names or logos are changed. >> >>Insisting that the top-level name of your product be changed is one >>thing. Insisting that modifiers hunt down every reference to a logo and >>replace it is quite another. (Also, note the difference between the >>requirement to change a project name, which is free, and the requirement >>to change a file name, which is not. Recall the LPPL discussions.) > > I do recall that distinction, but logos are much more like product > names than file names. A requirement to hunt down every occurrence of > "GNU" in the emacs source and change it would be exceptionally > onerous. Sure, you can just replace the text -- but you also have to > hunt down the pictures of bearded ungulates with the word "gnu" next > to them. Since we already let authors require that pictures of words > are removed, I don't think it's much of a stretch to let authors > require that other name-like pictures -- that is, logos -- be removed. Do we in fact have any packages in Debian that require a complete purge of the author's name from modified versions? As you said, that would be a _very_ onerous requirement. Can you give an example of something the license I suggested would permit that we should deny? - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature