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

Hi,

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.

The FSDG allows trademarks from what I understand:
```
Trademarks are associated with some software. For example, the name of
a program may be trademarked, or its interface may display a
trademarked logo. Often, the use of these marks will be controlled in
some way; in particular, developers are commonly asked to remove
references to the trademark from the software when they modify it.

In extreme cases, these restrictions may effectively render the program
nonfree. It is unfair for someone to ask you to remove a trademark from
modified code if that trademark is scattered all throughout the
original source. As long as the practical requirements are reasonable,
however, free system distributions may include these programs, either
with or without the trademarks.

Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. It
is not a problem if modification requires removal of these trademarks,
as long as they can readily be removed without losing functionality.

However, it is unacceptable to use trademarks to restrict verbatim
copying and redistribution of the whole distribution, or any part.
```

And Zrythm now has a meson option for easily changing the program name,
if you  would prefer to rename it to something else (Z-Daw for
example). Changing the logo is also very trivial, and I plan to add
freely licensed replacements in future releases to make it even easier
to replace.

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).

Thanks,
Alex

Hi Alexandros,

Alexandros Theodotou <alex@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.

> The FSDG allows trademarks from what I understand:

Your interpretation seems correct to me.

> 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.)

Apart from that, the patches LGTM!

Thank you,
Ludo’.

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Alexandros,
>
> Alexandros Theodotou <alex@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