On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:19:07AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> wrote: [...] > > If MjR has issues with the company Debian-UK (or any other alike > > organization) he buys his t-shirts from, then he should mention it to > > this organization's board, and the ethics of the company should be > > questioned. Optionally we could set-up a Debian wiki page to remind to > > Debian related non profits that some companies they may buy goods for > > may be quite eager to look away when it comes to how their goods are > > created. > > I believe it's most efficient to apply this bugfix at the highest > level possible. So, I try Debian (the licensor) before trying > individual licensees one at a time. I'd try to fix a memory leak in a > library by fixing the library in preference to trying to work around > it in every program. Except that Debian is not responsible of what Debian-related Orgs do (Unless I'm mistaken, Debian UK and friends aren't affiliated to `Debian`). Though you may want to port that to SPI, to whom associations may want to be affiliated to. Debian is _not_ the highest level, it's not in the same hierarchy. You're trying to fix memory leaks in a library by making the compiler issue statements about malloc() being a bad thing. I say the compiler has little knowledge about the real issue in the library and it'd better keep its mouth shut. > There was also some information-gathering in my request and it seems > this question is being lost: Do we have any knowledge about whether > current debian clothes are products of forced child labour? There is no such thing as Debian clothes and products. There are Debian-branded products, but those are not issued by Debian. The Open Logo is errr... Open I don't see what Debian can/should do about it. Again, it's not a *Debian* issue, just possibly a Debian-community-at-large one, which again points to SPI. > > But yes I believe that Debian is making software and has no point in > > taking such positions. [...] > > The project has already taken a position by licensing its trademark to > some traders and not others. Anyone who believes it has no point in > taking such positions should be working to either revoke or > public-license it. > > Do we know anything more than http://www.debian.org/trademark about > our licensees? Are there other licensees not listed there? This trademark policy has nothing to do with ethics. And I would be opposed to one based on the grounds that it's not the Project's role to measure our licensees ethical level. Of course some real court have said so. But if a court said some entity is unethical, it will probably be terminated or put on hold some way or the other, and would not be in a position to even ask a trademark license. IOW I still believe this subject is off-topic for Debian. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpd9TFiH_hVW.pgp
Description: PGP signature