Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett <email@example.com> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
>>>change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
>>>hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
>>>barrier to modification.
>> No it's not. Go ahead and try to change all the instances of Mozilla
>> in Mozilla. Observe that several of them are not plain text, but
>> image files containing clever renderings of the text "Mozilla". You
>> get the image-changing problem anyway, because people can draw
>> pictures of text.
> When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
> every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
> version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
> extent names have been incorporated into functional parts of the work,
> *which includes a requirement to change an image, as well as doing a
> global s/Mozilla/other/g*, I do not consider it Free to require them to
> be changed, and I do not believe it is covered under DFSG4.
I don't think you're reading DFSG4 at all. If the program identifies
itself at start up, that's clearly its name -- much more clearly so
than its package name or some secret word known only to its author..
> We have covered similar requirements in other licenses as well: there
> was a license that made the requirement that on request, you must purge
> the name of the author entirely from the work. I think that was from
> one of the Creative Commons licenses. That requirement was considered
> non-free as well.
Sure. I didn't say you have to purge the word "mozilla" from
Mozilla. Just that you can't *use it as a name*.
> (Personally, this argument is further strengthening my opinion that
> DFSG4 has little redeeming value, and that we would be better served by
> striking it entirely; there are many who share this opinion, and many
> who have expressed it on this list. In addition to the earlier problems
> that have been noted, it is apparently also confusing and ambiguous to
See, this is convincing me that maybe DFSG 4 isn't a total loss...
Brian Sniffen email@example.com