Re: adding and forking someone else's GPL software - what should i do?
Nick Rout <[email protected]> Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:17:39 +1300
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.user-groups.linux.new-zealand.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALmzFLa8SB_g7=UGX28-XZrmXdTTohxuXUE-n8T6nzq2L-5Kfg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jethro Carr <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 08:07 +1300, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: >> On Mon 21 Nov 2011 07:29:49 NZDT +1300, Robin Paulson wrote: >> >> > reading the GPL, i don't see anything i am obliged to do, but i may >> > be wrong in my interpretation. >> >> You are correct, you *need* to do nothing. Not even change the name. A >> while back the LaTeX people made their license to allow everyone to do >> everything one expects to be able to do with FOSS, except that they >> also >> mandated that forks change the package name to stop all hell breaking >> loose. Very sensible, but you wouldn't believe the number of militant >> screaming idiots over this (all from debian.org btw!) who saw their >> freedom infringed... > > > It's actually not an unreasonable concern raised by Debain. > > The problem with mandating a requirement to change the application name > upon a fork, is that if a distribution like Debian patches the > application (eg backports a bug fix, does a security fix, etc), that > patched version is now arguably a fork. > > As a developer, I wouldn't want someone forking JethrosAwesomeApp, > making poor quality changes and releasing with that same name. But at > the same time, I don't want all the distros shipping it under a > different name because my terms were too restrictive - a different name > confuses users and makes it hard to find. > > It's a hard balance to get right - ideally need some terms which are > "you are free to patch this application with fixes and minor > adjustments, but any major changes require a forked name". However this > is too vague and too open to different interpretations. > > > I've typically just added a request in the copyright explaining the > above or in some cases, the app name is trademarked and I detail > reasonable trademark usage terms, but it's not ideal. Think Redhat|Centos. Centos bit compatible, but without the trademarks. _______________________________________________ NZLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug