On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:59:08AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > Mind you, I don't think I'd necessarily have an issue with "To use this > trademark, you must run a publically reviewable bug tracking system and > implement some form of version management" (I might still, on a question > of practicality, or even a basic question of "Does this make it a required > cost of the software, and is that OK?", but it would be a matter of another > debate entirely, at that point). The problem with this sort of clause is usually the same: what the hell does it mean? "publically reviewable bug tracking system" and "some form of version management" are at best vague. Far and away the most likely cause of trouble later will be to do with the definition of these terms. I could use a mailing list archive for the former and a web server full of tarballs for the latter - and indeed, this is all that many projects do in the real world. I would also say from experience that this is *more* useful, and easier to use, than bugzilla and cvs. But what actually qualifies as satisfying a restriction such as this? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature