|
Hi Thibaut, Thanks for your answer! With the exception of the last item, all of these types of changes would be welcome (in fact, we'd be grateful!) We would also welcome people integrating new features - this has been done many times already with versions of Scratch like BYOB, Panther, etc. But we would ask that anyone wishing to add new features do so in a rebranded version of Scratch that does not contain our trademarks. This is to avoid confusion with official versions, and keep features consistent across all platforms.For a sane workflow in Debian, we need to be allowed modifications such as: - bug fixes (including security); - moving files around for better integration; - adding documentation; - dynamic linking of libraries; - removing files or features which are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines or which are covered by enforced patents; - rarely, early integration of features which we hope will be accepted upstream. I'm not sure how to proceed, as I'm I am also not a lawyer, and not very good at legalese. Shall I just draft something saying it's ok to do X and not ok to do Y, and run it by the list? I wonder if there are any standard templates for this sort of thing, or examples that have worked well in the past. -Amos On 09/30/2011 04:42 AM, Thibaut Paumard wrote: Dear Amos, Le 29/09/11 22:19, Amos Blanton a écrit :I'm working on getting the rest of the Scratch Team to sign off on releasing Scratch 1.4 under the GPL v3. One roadblock that remains is that we feel it's important to prevent others from re-releasing modified versions of Scratch with our trademarks. We *do not* want to prevent maintainers or helpful contributors from fixing bugs or addressing security issues in the official Scratch package. And we're happy to see Scratch remixed as long as the remix isn't called Scratch, and doesn't use our logo or the Scratch Cat (this has been done many times already <http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/List_of_Scratch_Modifications> under our current custom license).IANAL, but I far as I understand, software license and trademark license really are two distinct matters. You can GPL your software even if you require any derived work to be rebranded. That would, however, force Debian to rebrand Scratch right-away, which you probably don't want to happen. It's also very important that you don't make exceptions for Debian or whatever vendor: if you allow "us" to do something with your software, you should allow our downstream as well. For a sane workflow in Debian, we need to be allowed modifications such as: - bug fixes (including security); - moving files around for better integration; - adding documentation; - dynamic linking of libraries; - removing files or features which are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines or which are covered by enforced patents; - rarely, early integration of features which we hope will be accepted upstream. I think you should first clarify which modifications you are willing to allow under the name "Scratch", and which modifications would require re-branding. You can certainly then just put a file (README.trademark, LICENSE.trademark?) in the source distribution which explains exactly that. The exact content of this file can be discussed, so that in the end you grant us and the rest of the world sufficient rights to work with your package in a legal and sane manner, but not too much so as to, in effect, loose the benefit of you trademark. Best regards, Thibaut. |