Bug#947815: ITP: rust-spotify-tui -- Spotify for the terminal written in Rust
Ben Hutchings:
> 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.
>
This is just the convention we have for source-package names that are automatically packaged by our "debcargo" packaging tool. The binary-package name does not have the "rust-" prefix, so users would just type "apt install spotify-tui". I was under the impression that we should use source-package names in wnpp bugs.
>>> 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.
>
Well, this is more a matter for upstream - I can't just unilaterally rename someone else's program. If you or others have some reasonable and detailed arguments on why they should change their name, I would be happy to forward that or you could do so yourself... Then there is the question of all of the existing packages in Debian that have this similar issue. Also I'd expect that if Spotify were to complain, they would complain to upstream rather than Debian, since we cannot reasonably be expected to unilaterally rename someone else's tool.
X
--
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
Reply to: