Bug#893561: libtablelayout-java: license does not seem to meet the DFSG

[Francesco Poli]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:41:04 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote:

[...]
> In https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00142.html you 
> agreed entirely that it is OK when software is made DFSG-free through
> renaming to avoid trademark violations.
> 
> What difference would it make whether our users are forbidden to change
> the namespace back to "info.clearthought" due to
> 1. trademark
> 2. licence
> 3. both

Hello Adrian,
thanks for your prompt followup!

I see an important difference between the case at hand and the Mozilla
case.

One thing is the requirement to change the *name* for the work: this is
just how the work presents itself to the user, not something that
really affects functionality/interoperability/interfaces/...
Even if the name of the executable file of a program is changed, there
are many ways to easily let the user invoke it by another name
(symlinks, wrapper scripts, aliases, and so forth...).

I think the requirement to change *namespace* for library classes
is different: it affects the possibility to create modified drop-in
replacements for the library, without having to adapt all the
programs or other libraries that use the original library.
The namespace looks like a functional aspect.

I think it's not by chance that DFSG#4 accepts the requirements to
change the *name* or the *version number*, but not the requirements
to change other, more functional, labels in a package...


I hope this clarifies.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20180320/723e49f8/attachment.sig>