On Tue, 2019-12-31 at 16:39 +0000, Ximin Luo wrote: > Ben Hutchings: > > On Tue, 2019-12-31 at 04:31 +0000, Ximin Luo wrote: > > > Package: wnpp > > > Severity: wishlist > > > Owner: Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org> > > > > > > * Package name : rust-spotify-tui > > > Version : 0.11.0 > > > Upstream Author : Alexander Keliris <rigellute@gmail.com> > > > * URL : https://github.com/Rigellute/spotify-tui > > > * License : MIT or Apache-2.0 > > > Programming Lang: Rust > > > Description : Spotify for the terminal written in Rust > > > > Why is the implementation language relevant for an application package? > > > > I just copied upstream's github repo description. You also added "rust-" to the package name. > > Also, including Spotify in the name might be a trademark violation. > > > > IANAL but there's lots of other similar examples of a tool that > interfaces with a service S being called "something-S-something", > e.g. "calendar-google-provider". The description is pretty clear that > this is not an official spotify product. If the law actually has a > problem with this, I'd be at a loss to think of how we could possibly > name such a tool *without* referring to "S" verbatim in the name. > Prefix everything with "unofficial"? I've never seen that in any > other FOSS project. I am also NAL, but have seen a lot of trademark complaints in the software world. It is generally OK to use other companies' trademarks for "nominative use", e.g. to say that my product X works with Y. However, using another company's trademark at the beginning of a product name risks confusion and is more likely to result in, at least, legal threats. In this case, Spotify should definitely be mentioned in the package description, and maybe at the end of its name, but the package probably needs some distinct name. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part