On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:19:01PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > "John H. Robinson, IV" <jhriv@ucsd.edu> writes: > > however, if it is _not_ sponsored by debian, not supported by debian, > > not approved or endorsed by debian, and does not fall in the guidelines > > of debian's guidelines of the use of debian's name/logo, then it's a no > > go. > This is of course the underlying question. I don't think it would > change anything discussing this instead of the name. It is one and the > same thing. (For me at least). > I think a windows port could be part of Debian (and then should be > named Debian something) others disagrees. It is not really the name > we're talking about with regards to Debian. Please note that there is one other issue here that needs to be considered. If Debian decides to endorse a cygwin port, it may upset some developers, but it is legally acceptable. If Debian asks those working on a cygwin port to not use the Debian name, it may also upset some developers, but it is also a legally sound position. But, if we do /nothing/, and we allow the cygwin porters to continue using the Debian name without an explicit license, then this can be used against us in court later by someone wishing to appropriate the Debian name for much more nefarious purposes, as evidence that we have not defended our trademark against infringing use! For this reason, it's important to look at the name as a separate question from the distribution itself, and take decisive action one way or the other in order to protect the Debian name. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpAiqzMHFNvJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature