On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:07:43PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> writes:
>
> Joel> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
[ snip things appropriate to debian-legal, rather than debian-bsd ]
> >> c) whether it is a viable option is certainly not yours to decide;
> >> that's why I ask to include the option in the balot
>
> Joel> No, it's debian-legal's to decide. To date, they have
> Joel> considered some form of renaming to be the only feasible
> Joel> option.
>
> I mean, of course, the lack of choices in your proposed balot.
Then you're fundamentally wrong. The choice of what to put on the ballot,
being a straw poll, is *entirely* up to me. If you don't like the choices,
you are, as I said (and you chose not to quote) welcome to run a separate
poll on the question of whether it should be changed at all.
> >> d) what is rude is the FUD spreading from their side
>
> Joel> What FUD? They *asked* us to please change it to avoid confusion or
> Joel> potential problems with trademark dilution.
>
> Refering to a trademark in a way, which does not pay attention to
> the lawful uses of somebody else's trademark is spreading FUD in my
> book, by suggesting that there are not lawful uses of the said
> trademark.
>
> Heck, event remotely refering to the US legal system is spreading
> FUD, if you ask me !
You know, I can understand Branden's view that it's sabre-rattling, even if
I disagree with it. This is beyond anything I can comprehend enough to make
any sort of rational answer. As far as I can tell, you're unhappy with them
being impolite, but deny any alternative that could be otherwise.
> >> e) I'd suggest (if possible) to avoiding decisions based on certain
> >> country's flawed legal system
>
> Joel> It happens to be the country in which both Software in the
> Joel> Public Interest, and The NetBSD Foundation, are
> Joel> registered. We don't really have a choice of venue.
>
> Is Debian Project equivalent to SPI, Inc ? Is SPI, Inc. responsible
> for actions of an arbitrary Debian (or non-Debian) developer ? Isn't
> is possible, e.g. to host Debian GNU/NetBSD outside the US ?
All material Debian assets are held in trust by SPI, so, for the purposes
of a discussion of legal action, 'yes'. SPI *is* what would be involved, as
far as I understand it.
The lengths to which some people seem willing to go to avoid any manner
of complying with what was clearly intended as a polite request is truly
astounding. And people say RMS is obnoxious to deal with.
> Of course, granted that the use of NetBSD(tm) is not protected by
> the following:
>
> "(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
>
> (A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative
> commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing
> goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
>
> (B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
>
> (C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary."
Again, this belongs on debian-legal. Me, I don't particularly care whether
it's actually *required* or not; having no Home Owners Association, I'm
not *required* to avoid painting my house bring fuschia with neon orange
polka dots. But among the reasons I don't (apart from not particularly
liking those colors) is the fact that it would be profoundly annoying
and disturbing to my neighbors, who have done nothing to warrant such
treatment.
Since, unlike you (and apparently Branden), I don't believe that anyone
involved with NetBSD (the project, or the Foundation) has actually *done*
anything deliberately obnoxious, to warrant such a response, I really don't
see why it's such an issue.
If it makes you feel any better, treat the poll question as "Stipulated:
The Debian BSD ports will use a name other than the current one, and will
avoid the use of any trademarked words, fair or otherwise. What naming
scheme should be used?"
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpwdw_ID_wuc.pgp
Description: PGP signature