Richard, On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > For b), with my trademark team hat on, I don't see any issues even if > the organisation does not become a TO. As Brian disagrees and Joe has > not chimed in, we are tied within the trademark team as of right now. > We do not have the time for long deliberations as an option with the > venue will lapse if we wait too long with signing contracts and as we > need the legal entity as contractual partner. > Yet, I have become convinced that using "Debian" in the name will ease > sponsorship efforts. This means a higher chance of a balanced budget > and a larger travel budget. This directly benefits Debian. I of course have no say in the decision of whether the Debian trademark gets used in this way - that's for the DPL - but I just wanted to note that having the money routed through legal frameworks *not* called "Debian" has never been a problem in the past. The sponsorship team has had no problem saying that they are raising funds "on behalf of Debian for the annual conference", regardless of whose name is on the invoice at the end of the sponsorship conversation. > 1. The organization should share Debian's general visions > We are (almost?) entirely made up of DDs, most of us have had Debian > in our lifes for more than a decade. > We agree with the Social Contract, the DFSG, and the Debian Constitution. A group of individuals founding the organization may share the vision, yet the organization as a whole fail to hold true to this vision. IMHO the bar for granting the Debian name to an organization not directly controlled by the Debian Project as a whole should be very high. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature