GNU bug report logs - #42473
[PATCH] gnu: zrythm: Update to 0.8.694.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 42473 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, Ludovic
 Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 42473 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, GNU Guix maintainers <guix-maintainers <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#42473] [PATCH] gnu: zrythm: Update to 0.8.694.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 11:16:28 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback!

Attaching the updated patch.

Thanks,
Alex

On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 23:06 -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi Alexandros,
> > 
> > Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org> 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

[0002-gnu-zrythm-Update-to-0.8.694.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.