On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > > > They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when > > > the requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in > > > question is requiring a name change for even *unmodified* works, and > > > that's non-free. > > > > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that > > provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in > > so far as it applied to the Debian package. Right? > > Mmmmh, would I be allowed to grab the Debian package, and rename it as > ion3, without other modifications (and distribute the result whenever I > feel like doing so)? > > I mean: would the clause be really nullified? Or rather, would it just > not apply to Debian, but still be ready to kick in as soon as I do > something to the package? > I'm definitely uncomfortable with sleeping clauses which could get > suddenly awake when you least expect... :-(
This doesn't matter, it's still free. If you derive GPL software, you can't violate the terms of the GPL license and yet that GPL software still remains Free by the DFSG definition. Same with a renamed ion derivative, if you derive from a renamed ion and violate its license, the renamed ion remains Free. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
