jeremy i didn't see your reply until i checked online. you spotted the second
half:
We will usually allow these uses as long as the modifications
are (1) relatively small and (2) very clearly communicated to
end-users.
i did not include this because DFSG 8 is already violated by the first
half. the *very fact* of needing to ask is an unreasonable burden
that is directly in conflict with the entire Libre/Open Concept.
imagine a Copyright License that said, "you MUST come to us to
ask permission to distribute modified versions oh but otherwise this License is
a Free/Open One, No Really"
absolutely everyone would freak out and agree that is non-free, and the package
either moved to nonfree or pulled entirely.
this unfortunately is exactly what the Rust Trademark has done:
added *additional* Lawfully-enforceable requirements that must
legally be complied with or suffer the consequences.
* It's Free because Copyright License BSD (whatever)
* Oh But under the Trademark We Don't Grant Distribution
Rights for Derivative Works
and no, the existence of the Copyright License does *not* invalidate or
override the Legal requirement to also comply with Trademark Law. it is
astonishing the number of FOSS developers who genuinely believe that they can
blatantly disregard Trademark Law "Because Open Source"
> For instance, here is an excerpt without context from Debian's policy:
> "You cannot use Debian trademarks in a company or organization name or
> as the name of a product or service."
this is standard fare as part of Trademark Law. it causes "confusion".
l.
