Russ Allbery wrote: > Uoti Urpala <[email protected]> writes: > > DFSG allow a rename requirement; this means any trademark policy > > whatsoever cannot violate DFSG as long as it allows distributing > > unmodified sources and binaries, as you can always rename and then > > ignore the trademark policy. > > DFSG #4 is narrower than the possible actions that could be required by a > trademark policy, at least in the way that we've normally interpreted it, > since we've not interpreted it as allowing the renaming to affect > functional elements of the program. In other words, our historic > interpretation of DFSG #4 is that saying that you have to rename The Foo > Library to something else if you modify it is okay (if not preferred), but > requiring that you also rename all the functions in the public API from > foo_* to something else is a violation of the DFSG.
Does the naming of library functions really fall under trademarks? I wouldn't expect the use of a trademarked name as part of a function name to require permission (so even if a trademark policy had a clause trying to forbid that, it'd have no effect on an otherwise renamed program). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
