Subject: Re: [bug#42473] [PATCH] gnu: zrythm: Update to 0.8.694.

From: Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:06:18 -0400

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi Alexandros,
>
> Alexandros Theodotou <[email-masked]> skribis:
>
>> This is actually 2 patches. The first updates libcyaml and the 2nd
>> Zrythm. Note that I (Zrythm author) have added a trademark policy to
>> Zrythm that says modified versions that include the trademarks require
>> permission (as discussed on IRC with a few people):
>> https://www.zrythm.org/en/trademarks.html
>>
>> I am not 100% sure if patching the xdg-open path counts as a modified
>> version, but in any case this email is signed using the same key used
>> to sign the release, so it can be interpreted as "written permission"
>> to redistribute this.
>
> OK.  Perhaps right above the ‘name’ field of the package, you could add
> a link to the trademark policy above and state that Guix has a written
> permission to use it, with a link to your message?  That way we’ll have
> an audit trail.

That's a good idea.

>> The FSDG allows trademarks from what I understand:
>
> Your interpretation seems correct to me.

To me as well.

>> So it is up to the maintainers to decide if they want to keep Zrythm as
>> it is or rename it. Either way, I am happy with either decision,
>> although I would prefer if you were OK with keeping the "Zrythm" name
>> (as long as there's no patches to remove/add functionality or links to
>> the Zrythm website or things like that).
>
> I don’t see any reason not to keep “Zrythm” as things stand.
>
> Thoughts anyone?  (Cc: maintainers.)

I wish the trademark restrictions were relaxed to include the right for
modifications made solely with the goal of
building/packaging/integrating the software with a free software
distribution.  This would make things hassle free and extra clear.

That said, I'm not opposed to include Zrythm as things stands, if other
maintainers are OK with it.

Maxim