On Apr 28, 2007, at 21:59, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Working on my dp2mp-move branch just now I came up with some
questions regarding our naming as a project, as there are still
some references to darwinports, opendarwin and, eeehhhmmm, Apple in
key parts of our sources, and I'm not too sure what we should do.
My biggest question is with respect to the "com.apple.<target>"
naming we still use to identify each of the installation stages:
can we move that to something more consistent like
"org.macports.<stage>"? Note that I didn't ask "should we" just
there, simply because a full migration to the new name is the very
objective of the branch, so that's a given. I'm asking: can we? are
there any legal ramifications of any sort if we do, given that it
was Apple who first started the project? Please bear with me if
these seem like silly questions, not only am I not a lawyer but
also I don't live in the US, so I'm not at all acquainted with
pertinent legal procedures, if any. Any other roadblocks to moving
that to our own naming? (other than bugs that will arise, which
I'll look after as I work on the branch).
Seeing things like "com.apple.destroot" always confused the heck out
of me when I first started using DarwinPorts. I thought it referred
to some process of Mac OS X. I also didn't understand why a Java-
style reverse domain specification was needed at all. If it is, then
I would definitely vote for changing it to
org.macports.phase.<whatever> or similar.
On the same tune, I'm also wondering about our identification: can
we call ourselves a "working group"? a "vendor"? a "distributor"?
none? all? For an example of what I'm referring to, check out the
differences between the base/src/package1.0/portrpmpackage.tcl file
in trunk and in the dp2mp-move branch:
trunk:
(Line No. 159)%define distribution DarwinPorts
(Line No. 160)%define vendor OpenDarwin
branch:
(Line No. 159)%define distribution MacPorts
(Line No. 160)%define vendor MacPorts
What are these variables ("distribution" and "vendor") used for?
It would be good to get a clear definition of what we are and
aren't, in order to call ourselves consistently. As another
example, our base/portmgr/License.html file (shipped with our
dmg's) claims in its header (per my own not too educated addition
of our name):
Copyright (c) 2002 - 2003 Apple Computer, Inc.
Copyright (c) 2004 - 2007 MacPorts
All rights reserved.
Is that correct? incorrect? incomplete? Putting that same
(corrected) info in our front web page would also be a good idea,
I'm figuring (other than the incredible number of cleanups it
needs, I think that's an important one).
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think things can only be copyrighted
by legal entities -- that is, real people and corporations. Apple is
a legal entity because it is incorporated in the state of California.
I am a legal entity because I am a natural person. But "MacPorts" is
not a legal entity, so I don't think it can claim any copyright of
anything.
Someone could create a legal entity for MacPorts, if we thought that
would be useful. I think some other open-source projects have that.
Note that, according to the Wikipedia article "Copyright," an
original work is automatically copyrighted the moment it's created;
it's not necessary to say so with a copyright statement.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
