Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:But you do see, that our point of disagreement is over whether or not what I described was a 'modification'. I.e. your question is irrelevant to the conversation, since no modification is taking place.I wasn't merely concerned about what you are doing. I was talking about the trademark guideline clauses which allow certain kind of modifications while retaining the name and whether they fit with the current project goals.
Can you give me an example of a permitted modification that is currently allowed that you think should not be?
Sure I'd love to have a legal licensewhich states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist.Such a restriction wouldn't qualify as Free software at all.That was my point.Copyright licenses and trademark guidelines are two different things. I could for example have Free software with trademark guidelines that didn't allow certain kind of things. If you want to do those things, you merely have to fork like Firefox and IceWeasel. The trademark requirements on Firefox the name does not make Firefox the software non-free.
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits?