On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 01:40:17AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > What's the scenario you're concerned about here? Someone taking Debian > and distributing it as "MyLinux" and Debian not protecting that use > somehow?
Debian certainly cares about the terms under which Debian can be reused; this is one. As far as impressions go, it certainly feels non-free that I can't take "Debian GNU/Linux", fork and rename it to "Glenn GNU/Linux" and sell it. My impression would possibly be different this wasn't being applied retroactively, after Linux was usable with no restrictions for years; it feels in the same boat as the Pine licensing mess, where UW retroactively "un-freed" Pine. If "Linux" had these terms to begin with, people would probably have used a different name; we're stuck with it now, and suddenly we have to pay for it. It feels like we've been bait- and-switched. (I'm not entirely decided on the issue, applied non-retroactively: the Apache v1 "may not be named *Apache*" terms are considered Free, but this feels far more wide-reaching. In any event, I'm having a hard time seeing anything but undisguised hypocrasy on Linus's part here; as much distaste as I have for making such a conclusion, I can't seem to find any other ...) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
