headers
MJ Ray | 1 Sep 2005 14:53
Gravatar

Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Yawn. You complained and complained and complained in this vein on the
> debian-uk mailing list. When several people went and did their own
> research into how best to set things up and disagreed with you, you
> finally stopped that. Now you've come over to d-project in an apparent
> attempt to say "Look! These people are doing dodgy things I don't
> like! Please stop them!"

I'm arguing for an even-handed approach to the Debian trademark.
I didn't initiate this discussion. The chairperson of your
business argued against letting another one use the trademark.
See the last-but-one paragraph below for how this can end.

Over on the -uk list, some researchers were basically helpful,
but I think some were clearly searching to prop up the done
deal, rather than looking into how best to set things up. For
example, some ask about "association accounts" when talking to
banks, which assumes that's the best way. There's a bit of good
experience, but also some stuff which looks like prejudice.

That's not interesting, though. I don't care about DUS except:
1. I want no connection with it right now; including
2. I want it not to hold my personal details (especially not
the inaccurate personal details it currently uses).

I think there are reasons to dislike it, not enough to act on:
* DUS was developed at a meeting for another purpose and just
announced to those (is Cambridge the new Vancouver?).
* It has a very weak link to the debian project.
* Its leadership discourage and belittle democratic control -
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 127 comments |
headers
Adrian von Bidder | 1 Sep 2005 18:50
X-Face
Picon

Re: announcing a discussion list about academic aspects of Debian

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 14.02, martin f krafft wrote:

> Debian-Edu is a project about improving Debian to make it the best
> distribution for educational purposes.
>
> [academic-debian <at> lists.madducknet] is for people who are involved (or
> interested in) academic research about Debian.

... and the recently created debian-science is about *use of* Debian in 
academic (or other) research environments.

Just to complete this list.  I suspect we will see this same question again, 
occasionally.  (madduck:  would it make sense to announce your list on 
debian-science?)

cheers
-- vbi

--

-- 
Daddy, what does FORMATTING DRIVE C mean?
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Ruoso | 1 Sep 2005 20:30
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

Em Qui, 2005-09-01 às 13:53 +0100, MJ Ray escreveu:
> I think there are reasons to dislike it, not enough to act on:
> * DUS was developed at a meeting for another purpose and just
> announced to those (is Cambridge the new Vancouver?).
> * It has a very weak link to the debian project.
> * Its leadership discourage and belittle democratic control -
> it looks like bureaucratic empire-building, to maximise the
> number of members but have none of the responsibilities.
> * Opt-out membership associations seem a very shady practice -
> can anyone clearly opt-out without DUS recording personal data?
> * Its beer-mat constitution does not cover some basic points.
> * I doubt the will/ability of DUS to follow regulations.
> * I don't like donations marked "debian" endangered.
> * I'm not a fan of bureaucracy or hierarchy, nor do I see the
> benefit of them for DUS.
> * I don't like DUS carrying on business as "Debian-UK".
> * DUS leaders and members suggest things are lies when they
> are actually either different opinions or true.

I see nothing on this that can be considered a Debian (as "The Debian
Project") problem, it's an internal problem of the Uk Debian Fellows
Group (as groups around the world, which has their internal problems
too), except for:

> * I don't like DUS carrying on business as "Debian-UK".

So, are you suggesting that every group around the world, such as
debian-br, which does sell branding clothes and other stuff should take
a different name?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 126 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 2 Sep 2005 11:49
Gravatar

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

Daniel Ruoso <daniel <at> ruoso.com> wrote:
> I see nothing on this that can be considered a Debian (as "The Debian
> Project") problem, it's an internal problem of the Uk Debian Fellows [...]

Yes, mostly, you're right and they're not enough to act on. One
possible debian problem is the use of db.d.o when DMUP forbids
commercial use, but I don't know how that works in practice.

> except for:
> > * I don't like DUS carrying on business as "Debian-UK".
> 
> So, are you suggesting that every group around the world, such as
> debian-br, which does sell branding clothes and other stuff should take
> a different name?

I don't know debian-br and I didn't find enough explanation.
Trading with "debian" in the name is an advantage against other
local businesses who can sell debian CDs, isn't it? What does
the project get in return for that advantage?

In general, I think a group now should be called debian only if:
  1. it's a debian subproject, OR
  2. it's a local charity and got consensus BEFORE trading, OR
  3. it's outside the scope of trademark infringement,
because these things have big potential to reflect on debian.
1 offers debian some influence, 2 should ensure minimal "good
governance" and debian influence and 3 we can't do much about.

DUS seems neither subproject nor UK charity, but a business at
present.  If the long-standing "To be fair to all businesses, we
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 125 comments |
headers
Steve Langasek | 2 Sep 2005 12:58
Picon
Favicon

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:49:25AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

> I don't know debian-br and I didn't find enough explanation.
> Trading with "debian" in the name is an advantage against other
> local businesses who can sell debian CDs, isn't it? What does
> the project get in return for that advantage?

I confess to being puzzled by this persistent use of the term "business"
here.  AFAICT, the Debian UK Society does not have any employees that it
pays; it does not appear to hold any assets, except those which are held
in trust for Debian -- AIUI, the stated purpose for its creation; it has
no shareholders who stand to profit, either from dividends or from sale
of their shares; and it does not engage in any lucrative activities of
which the society itself is a benefactor, seeing that revenue from CD
sales is donated to Debian.  So the society is certainly a
/corporation/, but if it's a business it's a piss-poor one.  (Likewise,
SPI is a corporation, but not a business; and from what I understand of
such things, SPI could also not be considered a charity under UK law.)

As for what the project gets in return for the advantage when selling
Debian CDs, er... we get all the money from the CD sales (after material
costs), don't we?

It's still a fair question whether we want national non-profit
affiliates that hold assets on our behalf to use the Debian trademark,
but this "business" business looks like one bloodshot doozy of a red
herring.

> In general, I think a group now should be called debian only if:
>   1. it's a debian subproject, OR
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 124 comments |
headers
Matthew Garrett | 2 Sep 2005 13:41
Picon

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

Steve Langasek <vorlon <at> debian.org> wrote:

> As for what the project gets in return for the advantage when selling
> Debian CDs, er... we get all the money from the CD sales (after material
> costs), don't we?

Minus the amount that's spent on buying some food and drink for the
volunteers afterwards, yes.

--

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.project <at> srcf.ucam.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 2 Sep 2005 19:38
Gravatar

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

Steve Langasek <vorlon <at> debian.org> wrote:
> I confess to being puzzled by this persistent use of the term "business"
> here. 

DUS is an enterprise generating income from commercial sale of goods.
Whatever else you want to call it, "business" seems accurate.

> AFAICT, the Debian UK Society does not have any employees that it
> pays;

The last discussion I remember of that was
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-uk/2004-July/thread.html#10019
and isn't conclusive, but I think you're correct.

> it does not appear to hold any assets, except those which are held
> in trust for Debian -- AIUI, the stated purpose for its creation; it has
> no shareholders who stand to profit, either from dividends or from sale
> of their shares;

Neither of those stop it being a business. Some social enterprises
share those features. Some members benefit from DUS money, but it's
not a limited company with obvious and explicit shareholders.

> and it does not engage in any lucrative activities of
> which the society itself is a benefactor, seeing that revenue from CD
> sales is donated to Debian. 

DUS spends on itself, which is necessary in its current setup.
>From the last three treasurer's reports:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 122 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 3 Sep 2005 01:56
Gravatar

spi-trademark status, was: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader <leader <at> debian.org> wrote:
> The SPI trademark committee[3] still exists and still needs support from
> Debian's Developers, all of whom are automatically eligible for SPI
> membership[4] and can sign up to join its mailing list.  Mako Hill and Greg
> Pomerantz are making progress, particularly of late, but I'm sure they
> wouldn't mind some more eyes and hands involved in the work.
[...]
> [3] http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-trademark
> [4] http://www.spi-inc.org/membershipguidelines

It's far from clear to new members what has been done and what
needs doing now. The list doesn't feel actively led. Here's a
summary of what I found from charter, kick-off and archives:

  1. Creation of spi-trademark

Charter approved in 2003:
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2003-06-03.bmh.1

Named members:
# Greg Pomerantz, legal counsel
# Bruce Perens
# Benjamin Mako Hill, board liason
# Martin Michlmayer or current DPL, or designate, as Debian representative

Agreed to open to any SPI contributing members and Debian developers.

  2. Pro bono advice

I don't know what happened about this item.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Daniel Ruoso | 5 Sep 2005 12:47
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

Em Sex, 2005-09-02 às 18:38 +0100, MJ Ray escreveu:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > Why should *charities* get special consideration, anyway?  Being a
> > charity doesn't automatically make them aligned with Debian's goals.
> Indeed, which is why debian should reach consensus before they
> trade. I think charities should get some special consideration
> because law enforces some level of openness and honour not
> required of other organisations.

I must remember that you're restrictive to UK law. In Brasil, for
instance, there is no such thing as "charity organization". We have
NGO's which are simply civil associations, not-for-profit, in general.
If a NGO fullfill a set of requirements, it can be certified as a "Civil
Organization for the Public Interest (OCIP)", which means that it can
receive gov's money, and just that.

So, a NGO (even a OCIP) is allowed to trade things, because the question
(in the brazillian sense) is if there is profit or not. I mean, selling
something for a value greater than the cost is *not* profit. Profit (in
the brazillian sense) is the value that is shared among share-holders
after the balance.

So, let's not stick to country-specific laws...

daniel

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 114 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 5 Sep 2005 13:55
Gravatar

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

Daniel Ruoso <daniel <at> ruoso.com> skribis:
> Em Sex, 2005-09-02 =E0s 18:38 +0100, MJ Ray escreveu:
> > [...] I think charities should get some special consideration
> > because law enforces some level of openness and honour not
> > required of other organisations.
> 
> I must remember that you're restrictive to UK law.

Did you mean that as agressively as I read it?

I'm not restrictive, but English law is what I'm most familiar
with, so if I generalise brokenly, or you use another place's
law, corrections or explanations are needed. Maybe I should
have named www.charitycommission.gov.uk before, for example.

Where do charities exist but not need any openness or honour?

> In Brasil, for
> instance, there is no such thing as "charity organization".

Then no groups would get special consideration from that
clause of my suggestion. What's the problem?

[...]
> So, a NGO (even a OCIP) is allowed to trade things, because the question
> (in the brazillian sense) is if there is profit or not.  I mean, selling
> something for a value greater than the cost is *not* profit. Profit (in
> the brazillian sense) is the value that is shared among share-holders
> after the balance.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 113 comments |

Gmane