Hi, I'm trying to understand how to interpret DFSG clause 4, in particular under circumstances where the name of a file also encodes its purpose or usage or any other kind of "API". I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, and it seems to me that one of the major obstacles of the old LPPL was that it required a change of filenames without any other option. So the lesson would be that it is accepted that derived *works* identify themselves under a different name, but requiring that derived works not use the original filenames is not accepted. I must say, however, that I found the old discussion hard to read, dispersed about many threads, and probably even in private mail sometimes. On the other hand, in http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/26382/match=name+changing+clauses MJ Ray said, without anyone contradicting that: ,---- | Amusingly, it's only the | filename and you can probably make an symlink or some other | alias while complying with this, so it's more comedy than a bug. `---- So here the lesson seems to be that also filename change requirements are acceptable as long as they do not impose any "relevant" restrictions, with the question what's relevant depending on the individual case. Can you help me out? Is there any consensus in debian-legal? I'd rather get some general guidelines, otherwise I expect myself boring -legal with similar questions all the time... TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Attachment:
pgpGSixtz8_Y2.pgp
Description: PGP signature