* Arthur de Jong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 19:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > While this argument was indeed tempting, I think we also need > > > to look at how free the resulting package is: Can a derivbative take > > > any package in main, modify it, and further redistribute it? If yes, > > > then the package can remain in main, and is free; if not, then the > > > package is not free. > > > > Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it *as > > long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing to > > accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our users? > > Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to in the > first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is not allowed > to call it mozilla-firefox. If we call it debian-firefox then downstream > is still not allowed (under the same conditions) to call it > mozilla-firefox. The difference is not that huge to me. (but naming the > package just firefox seems to me like a good idea in the first > place)
The difference is we have perhaps compromised our principles to keep calling it Firefox. BTW, don't be fooled into thinking we'll be able to call it debian-firefox. If we have to rename it will not be able to include the string "firefox" anywhere in that name. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
