Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

[Paul Wise]

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:

> An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a
> proprietary piece of software.

I think it would be best to pro-actively rename the software now
rather than wait until renaming the software would be more painful.
Even if the proprietary software developer gives their permission,
they could always sell the software to someone else, who might not be
as forgiving of the naming similarity.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Hi Ben,

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:24:11AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves  writes:
> 
> > I pushed updates here:
> >
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git/tree/debian/COPYING.emails
> 
> That's a good record. Better than most Debian packages, I'd say :-)

Thank you! :-D

> Can you put the Message-ID field for each message in the header for the
> message? That will make it easier to refer to specific messages later.

I'd prefer not to, because Message-ID reveals what I consider private
information (IP address or client hostname) to an unbounded audience,
and I believe that this is a greater privacy violation than the
lintian warning against downloading a hyperlinked image in local
documentation.  The later only reveals private information to a single
person.  Yes, it can be argued that Debian Developers wave their
privacy by participating in publicly archived forums, like this one;
however, because the contributors chose to privately email me rather
than reply to this this thread, I have chosen to maximally respect
their privacy.

> As it is, I can say I think you need only these ones:
> 
> * Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:15:58 +1000
>   From: Trent Buck 
> 
> * Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 20:24:01 -0700
>   From: Michael Olson 
> 
> * Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:57:49 +0200
>   From: Julien Danjou 
> 
> > How important is this updated copyright?
> 
> It's important to include explicit grant of specific license in writing
> from all copyright holders.

I included Mehdi's statement because I believe it is to the affect of
"I am pretty sure that I am not a copyright holder".  That said, is
this record sufficiently complete without digging through bts archives
to find out how to contact anyone who was involved in the NMU he
did...and then contacting them?

> > Do I need to worry about getting it into Stretch?
> 
> I think it can wait until after the release, though I don't speak for
> the release team or FTP masters.

I contacted them but don't expect to receive a reply, knowing how busy
they must be ;-)

Thank you for the help,
Nicholas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Dear Debian Legal,

An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a
proprietary piece of software.  Both the free and the proprietary
software are developed in the U.S.A.  The upstream has confirmed that
the name is not a registered trademark in the U.S.A, but the
proprietary software unambiguously precedes the free version; thus, if
ever there is a dispute, the developer of the first version has the
"prior art" argument on their side.

The developer of the free software implementation has asked me if it
would be sufficient to ask permission from the author of the
proprietary developer to name his software similarly.  If this is
acceptable, would you please provide a template I can send to the
author of the free implementation?

The degree of similarity as close as "Quake" and "Quake-world".

Sincerely,
Nicholas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature