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

From: Leo Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 00:51:47 +0200

Am Sonntag, den 26.07.2020, 20:26 +0100 schrieb Alexandros Theodotou:
> > I'd love to see a trademark policy that doesn't mention Guix (or 
> > *anyone*) by name but gives us (and *anyone*) the freedom to do 
> > what we want to do: responsibly but independently maintain & 
> > redistribute a well-integrated, CVE-free ZRythm package.  I'm 
> > aware that I might be hoping for too much :-)
> 
> While I wish I could do that as well, there are no other similar
> examples to follow afaik and IANAL so I don't know how to put that
> wording in legal terms that cannot be abused (giving permission to
> *anyone* to do things with a trademark beyond what basic trademark
> law
> allows does not sound like a good idea), besides giving specific
> permission to trusted projects like GNU Guix, so I try to stay on the
> safe side.
IANAL either, but instead of
```
You may distribute unaltered copies of Zrythm that include the Zrythm
trademarks without express permission from Alexandros Theodotou.
```
and
```
However, if you make any changes to Zrythm, you may not redistribute
that product using any Zrythm trademark without Alexandros Theodotou’s
prior written consent.
```
you should write something like
```
You may distribute unaltered copies of Zrythm that include the Zrythm
trademarks without express permission from Alexandros Theodotou.
You may further distribute altered copies of Zrythm that include the
Zrythm trademarks, provided that alterations solely serve the purposes
of:
- porting Zrythm to a platform or free software distribution not
already supported by Zrythm as-is, OR
- fixing a bug in Zrythm, that has already been acknowledged by
Alexandros Theodotou or [a bigger authority, e.g. there's a CVE], OR
- ...
In any case, you must preserve [bla bla bla], also you must provide (a
link to)? the original sources.  If you make any other changes, you may
not redistribute that product...
```

Roughly meaning: If it already works on Ubuntu, you shan't patch it to
make it work on Ubuntu.  If it doesn't work on Gentoo, you can patch it
until it works on Gentoo and no further.  If Alexandros Theodotou has a
bugfix for something already published in Git, but you need to backport
that fix, you can do it.  If there's a CVE you can patch it.  If any of
those patches goes beyond integration/bugfixing, that's a violation.  I
personally believe, that this should be clear enough in most cases, but
it needs slightly better legalese.

Regards, Leo