Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:40:43PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
> "John Halton" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>> 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which
>>> they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on
>>> which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the
>>> recipient receives a usable copy.
>> Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents "cheap CD"
>> vendors from selling copies of Debian on an "as is" basis.
> I'm not sure this is a real concern. are they really selling the
> media as-is? So If the cd comes scratched so bad it does not work,
> or is warped, the buyer has no recourse?
> I can see no warrenty on data being useable for anything, but I'm
> not aware of anybody who sells Disc's who does not have at least a
> limited warrenty covering manufactiong defects on the media. (As
> opposed to data defects)
I agree this is probably more of a theoretical concern than an actual
problem. Anyone who refused to replaced defective CDs would go out of
business very quickly!
> Including that notice in the package long description would
> certainly cover the packages.debian.org and downloading via
> aptitude/synaptic. But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up
> such as to allow us to include a README file in the same directory.
> My guess is that including the statement in the package's long
> description is would be considered by RedHat as sufficient, but we
> should really get clarification.
I'd be amazed if this approach was a problem, but I agree a
clarification is worthwhile. Presumably the notice could also be
included in the "copyright" file?
> The distribution media thing is likely something the ftpmasters
> would need to decide. It not really so much a freeness problem, as
> potential practical problem should an organization unwilling to
> place a limited warrenty on the physical media exist and desire to
> destribute Debian.
> The notice requirement can be solved, if Red Hat agrees that
> including the notice in the package's long description is
> sufficient. (Which I expect they will, but we really need offical
> clarification on.)
I agree. So overall it sounds like this will be OK, subject to that
point about the distribution media and the clarification from Red Hat.