On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:15:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:47:15PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > > * Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [2003-09-20 17:07]: > > > > > By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, "HP > > > Debian Labs". > > > > I'd also have no problems with this. However, I also think that the > > Debian Labs should not be used to make a profit. I think a HP Debian > > Labs should be of a similar nature as HP Labs which is a research > > facility. If there were a simple way to restrict the use of the name to research and non-profit use within a for-profit organization, I don't think I'd have a problem with it but... > I suspect that HP shareholders think that they're using HP research labs > to make a profit. I also agree with this point. Rather than just using the lab for "profit", I am worried about organizations using the Debian name to create create a competitive advantage for their company in a for-profit area where they are competing with other Debian-based companies or in a way that could discourage other companies from supporting Debian professionally. If we can come up with a realistic, clear, and legal way of making this distinction within a for-profit company, my reservations would be much allayed. > Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict "Debian Labs" to groups that > are doing R&D rather than sales. Do you want to limit consulting work too > though? These are only the first of many good questions you ask. I think that one simple answer is: restrict the name Debian Labs to non-profits and then don't worry about setting stringent policy about what they can and can't do and when they can and can't use the name. > > If they don't charge (or perhaps charge but not make a profit?) then > > they can of course install Debian on systems. > > Isn't charging for your time making a profit? No. Non-profits can offer consultancy services and charge. The just can't funnel that benefit back to undue benefit of their members. > What if someone's employed by the same company to work part-time in a > Debian Lab, and part time doing Debian support, together making up a > single full time job? What benefit does that arrangement have over being > full time employed in a single job, that does research in a Debian Lab > and does Debian support? If your point was that this is overly complex arrangement, I agree. > > > Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular > > > Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor > > > particular developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar > > > > Yes, I think we could encourage people to give 1/2 of their donation > > to SPI And 1/2 to a Debian Lab. I think encouraging people to give some portion of their donations to SPI is a great idea. > The rules for donations are usually something like requiring they > further the organisations interest, and aren't a quid-pro-quo > arrangement. So if you go to a charity ball and pay $1000 to attend, > that's not tax deductible because it was a payment for > something. The extra $1000 that you donate when they bring a hat > around is a donation. The $1000 raffle ticket you buy isn't. I'm not sure what US law is like in these terms. We can check with our lawyer if the answer is important and if SPI wants to go in this direction. > The main issue for tax is likely to be ensuring that donations > aren't used as a tax avoidance scheme. Someone saying to HP, "hey, > instead of paying you directly, I'll make a donation to your labs > via SPI. muahahaha!" will get us all into trouble. And if we can > avoid that, we'll probably avoid the other problems in so doing. Agreed. > FWIW, I'm in favour of requiring Debian Labs to be R&D focussed and to > employ full time researchers, to provide debs of everything they develop, > to focus on getting their successful research into main, and letting > pretty much everything else develop as best it may -- having a focus > doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else. I'm also in favour > of letting people do tax-deductible donations to Debian Labs via SPI, > if it's possible. Obviously Debian Labs will have to say "no" to some > contracts if they want to keep the moniker -- ones that say "here's $5M; > now make all your staff wear Microsoft suits and ties, and play Windows > Solitaire all year", eg. But we shouldn't force them to ever say "no" > to money for working on things that actually improve Debian, imo. I think we're in agreement in most areas. I think the situation I'd advocate is something like: SPI is very careful about who we license the Debian trademark to. We choose people that have done work with Debian in the past and that we have reason to believe will do a good job in the future. We have a strong bias toward organizations that are doing R&D in ways that help Debian but use the guidelines of Non-Profit status to demonstrate how the money will be spent and that's it's not going to go into creating a more competitive position for a company in regards to Debian work. We make part of the trademark license agreement a regular review of their work in regards to published criteria and we keep the right to revoke the use of the mark. There is a lot of good points that have come out of this thread already. I welcome more criticism and critique. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Attachment:
pgpzLqYfYNDB3.pgp
Description: PGP signature