[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> 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
> some.)

See, this is convincing me that maybe DFSG 4 isn't a total loss...

Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: