Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [...]
> Further, it's up to *Debian* to decide what uses of the logo reflect badly
> on it and consequently should be disallowed because we don't wish to be
> associated with them. Your above statement includes an implicit value
> judgement about which sorts of activities Debian will or will not wish to be
> associated with, which may not be at all representative of the views of the
> project members at large.
Two things wrong with that:
Firstly, much of this thread seems to be taken up by people saying that the
project can't disallow things which we don't think reflect badly on debian
but other people generally do. Why is this different?
Secondly, if any debian developers think sweatshop-sewn shirts of cotton
subsidised by one of the world's richest countries reflect well on the
project, then that would be very disappointing and not common views
among the wider population. When surveyed, people know that this is
what they should do - for example, 8 out of 10 people say retailers
should stock more products which help people in developing countries
improve their standard of living (Shopping with Attitude survey, 2006)
- although they're deterred by the high prices at present. But official
debian shirts are a premium product and ethical sourcing shouldn't make
as big a difference, proportionately.
Also, few of the recent value judgements about licensing have been
passed before the project members at large, even when there has been an
objection, so why should this one, if there's no objection?
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct