Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> >The fact that it's a restriction on derived works (§3) that is not
> >explicitly allowed by §4?
> I see no reason to believe that the DFSG applies to things like the
> name of a program, like it does not covers patents.
Then why do we bother to explicitly allow forcing a name change in
DFSG §4 if the "DFSG [doesn't] appl[y] to things like the name of a
> There has never been a list of "explicitly allowed" requirements.
There's a list of requirements to which works in Debian must adhere,
and then specific exceptions to the reach of these requirements... if
you're unconfortable with calling the "specific exceptions"
"explicitely allowed", feel free to mentally substitute the former for
> This is just another way some people are trying to extend its
> meaning to cover areas it was never supposed to regulate.
This is just another way some people are trying to ignore its meaning
to allow software into Debian it was never supposed to allow. [Hey,
this is fun! Let's try some more!]
> And anyway, even if this were true I can't see why this would not be
> allowed by DFSG #4.
Because instead of merely requiring that the name be changed to
something distinct, it disallows a whole set of names which are
distinct from the original name.
1: I really can't see how anyone could claim that the DFSG doesn't
care about the names of programs when it actually bothers to deal with
Three little words. (In decending order of importance.)
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php