On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:43:16 +0530, Rahul wrote: > On 12/11/2009 04:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:14:40 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > > >> On 12/11/2009 03:56 PM, Florian Festi wrote: > >>> Without knowing the history: > >>> > >>> Best solution would be to ask former upstream for permission to continue > >>> the project under its original name > >> > >> That was already denied > >> > >> https://lists.feep.net:8080/pipermail/libtar/2009-May/000259.html > > > > Don't call it denial, though, because libtar is licensed under terms > > similar to MIT/BSD (with no advertising clause) [1]. This alone gives many > > permissions. See the license text for the details. > > Sure but my comment has nothing to do with the license but the name of > the project. The author doesn't deny it, he only expressed a personal wish. The license decides whether one may modify the project and distribute the modified project ... and so on. Whether to do that in a src.rpm with patches, in a private fork or in a public fork, is a different matter. https://lists.feep.net:8080/pipermail/libtar/2009-December/000287.html Interestingly, the author refers to the license as "BSD-style", https://lists.feep.net:8080/pipermail/libtar/2009-December/000282.html which is what matches my impression quoted above. Fedora's package says "MIT", which isn't true. Another item for the review request. > > The real reason not to use the "libtar" namespace for a fork are > > others. > > If a upstream developer requests anyone not to use the same name for > continuing maintenance of a project, then regardless of the license, it > would only be polite not to do so setting aside everything else. Here I agree. Just changing the project name does not suffice, however, if files and API and ABI conflict with the old project. Refer to my older bugzilla comment for the details. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
