On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 08:32:09 +0200 Christian Marillat wrote: > Hi, Hello Christian, > > [Please Cc me I'm not subscribed to this list] Done. > > I was the displaycal (python2 version) maintainer but asked his removal > as the curren maintain doesn't reply to e-mails > > A fork has been done, but as discussed in > https://github.com/eoyilmaz/displaycal-py3/issues/96 > people do not agree to the license and project.binary name. > > Can you give me your opinion ? Well, first of all, I should say that the GNU GPL does not require a name change for modified/derived/forked versions of a work. And copyright law does not cover names, as far as I can tell. Depending on the details of diplayCAL, and on the jurisdiction under consideration (which may vary across different hypothetical lawsuits, due to rules for the selection of venue...), trademark laws of a specific country could impose a name change for a fork. And anyway, in order to avoid confusion with the original project, I personally think it would be nice that a fork adopted a distinct name. Especially if the fork is significantly diverging from the original project and created without talking to the original developers (because they do not reply, in the present case, but that doesn't change the fact that they were not got in touch with...). I agree with Paul Wise (pabs3) that "diplayCAL-ng" (or "displayCAL-py3") is probably too similar to the original name to avoid confusion. You should come up with something more creative (maybe "FreeScreenCalibrator"? or "calibscreen"?). By the way, avoiding confusion is the main point of (sane) trademark laws. I hope this helps, at least a bit. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpH84PIJT7HZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature