(CCing the bug, #841056)
Christoph Biedl writes ("Fixing dvi2dvi"):
> I'd like to fix dvi2dvi which (besides a no-brainer) has a problem
> | #841056 dvi2dvi: license requires package rename
>
> >3. The package name of the modified software must not be ``dvi2dvi'' or
> >``dvi2dvi-<XX>'' where <XX> is the version number.
>
> Now I could take some advice what in Debian would be considered
> compliant to that clause.
>
> Was it sufficient to rename the binary package only, or should the
> source package be renamed as well?
I think `package' probably means source package too, although you
don't quote the licence. For the benefit of others:
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/d/dvi2dvi/unstable_copyright
Is upstream contactable ? Maybe they could be persuaded to drop the
restriction. Does anyone know if they have been asked ?
> Also, it would help the users if a transitional package "dvi2dvi" was
> shipped as well. Technically this should be acceptable since the
> transitional package was not provided by upstream, so the clause does
> not apply. But I'd like to hear a second opinion on that.
I think we should do that, yes, and I think that is fine.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
