Gabriel wrote: >> What is really the problem? Apart from the fact that it is >> not good practice to carry the names of distros in package >> names of generic apps and libraries, it is not evident (at >> least to me) where the problems really rely.
> Right now, it *appears* that the LF's position is that you > must rename the package if you (a) make major changes and/or > (b) repackage it for another distro. I can't speak for > other licenses, but this isn't consistent with the (L)GPL. This is why I took the time to list the potentially conflictive packages at http://wiki.meego.com/MeeGo_in_package_names Looking at Ibrahim's email there are two interesting points in relation to this discussion: > the goal is to avoid any confusion around what is and what is not MeeGo What are the packages on that list that could lead to that confusion? If there is any (I doubt) then the license of such packages needs to address this goal. If they don't then let's file the corresponding bugs. > when you append MeeGo to a package name, it would be very reasonable to > conclude > that this is an official MeeGo package coming from MeeGo.com When a distro uses any of the packages listed in the wiki page above without significant modifications, two remarkable things happen: 1. The "meego" string is already appended in the package name. The distro is not making any new attribution, it just keeps the current status. If the MeeGo project sees a problem in this, then either the naming or the licensing must be changed. 2. The "meego" string effectively explains that such package is an official MeeGo package coming from MeeGo.com - just being used in the context of another distribution. Again, if the MeeGo project finds that this is problematic then the solution is to change either the name or the licensing of the package. If these interpretations are correct, where is the problem then? -- Quim _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
