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

Re: Fixing dvi2dvi

(CCing the bug, #841056)

Christoph Biedl writes ("Fixing dvi2dvi"):
> I'd like to fix dvi2dvi which (besides a no-brainer) has a problem
> |  #841056 dvi2dvi: license requires package rename
> >3. The package name of the modified software must not be ``dvi2dvi'' or 
> >``dvi2dvi-<XX>'' where <XX> is the version number.
> Now I could take some advice what in Debian would be considered
> compliant to that clause.
> Was it sufficient to rename the binary package only, or should the
> source package be renamed as well?

I think `package' probably means source package too, although you
don't quote the licence.  For the benefit of others:


Is upstream contactable ?  Maybe they could be persuaded to drop the
restriction.  Does anyone know if they have been asked ?

> Also, it would help the users if a transitional package "dvi2dvi" was
> shipped as well. Technically this should be acceptable since the
> transitional package was not provided by upstream, so the clause does
> not apply. But I'd like to hear a second opinion on that.

I think we should do that, yes, and I think that is fine.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: