Hi Andrej thanks for your objections. Il giorno mar 4 dic 2018 alle ore 09:58 Andrej Shadura <and...@shadura.me> ha scritto: > > In particular, I have > > 1) removed requirement to change the logo (see [1] from Francesco Poli). > > That requirements was not there to protect the brand of the authors but > > to protect the users from being fooled to use a modified version > > instead of the original; > > That still effectively forbids your software from being packaged.
Mind to elaborate why? A package might help the user to interactively replace the file, use Debian's "alternatives" (or equivalent) or simply create a symbolic link. Maybe I'm misreading DFSG 4? > > 2) left requirement to change the name, because the definition of "use" > > already allows the users to store a Derived Work in place of the Hack; > > So if I want to patch a security vulnerability, I have to bikeshed a > name? Please no. This is a good point, thanks! As I said my goal is to protect people from being fooled to use (even remotely, as a service) a modified version of the software in place of the original. I see two solutions to this interpretation issue: 1) s/Derived Work under this License but/Derived Work under this License as either source patches or/ 2) s/but with a different name/but clearly informing its users about the differences with the Hack./ Solution 1 seems less prone to interpretations and easier to comply unambigously. OTOH, solution 2 is more general and clearly states the intent of the hackers, so I would prefer this. What your take? Giacomo