Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

[Juri H. <ju...@fa...>]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:15:35 +0200, Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote:
> On 2010-04-09 11:25, Juri Hamburg wrote:
>> I would strike the name (who cares about names?) and do an initial
commit
>> first. The question is, wether the commit should be "cleaned"
(eliminate
>> occurences of "ion", substitute with "notion") or not. If we do _not_
>> clean
>> the initial commit, we are definitely not allowed to distribute it (or
>> offer public checkout until it is "cleaned"). 
> 
> Have you even read the license? Or do you mean that Debian and other
> distributions that distribute ion3 is doing so illegal? As long as the
> version distribute does not "significantly differ from one of the
> copyright holder's release" it's ok.
> 
> Based on what? That's not correct. Debian distributes (or... well,
> distributed) ion under it's correct name. As long as you don't 
> 

Well, you're right, in the license of ion-3-20090110 only the executables
are mentioned:

  "Versions for which the above conditions are not satisfied, must be
  renamed so that they can not be associated with the Ion project, their
  executables must be given names that do not conflict with the copyright
  holder's version, and neither the copyright holder nor the Ion project
  may be referred to for support."

I'm still quite sure that I have read something about removing
"functional" occurrences of ion. Either ion's mailing list or maybe even
IRC? Once in #ion Tuomo commented some ion-fork discussion with something
like "have fun removing all ion references". Unfortunately I do not have
that in my logs. I guess you could find that part if you grep for
"reference" and "suffer freetards". :)

However, due to license, seems like we just have to change the executable
name. What is actually an executable in that context? Just the one to start
the window manager? 


-- 
Juri Hamburg