Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 07:25:37AM -0700, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think great caution should be exercised here. One thing Debian
> appears to take very seriously is it's social contract and the
> evaluation of the licenses of the packages it puts in main. I think
> that Debian should not blindly jump on an "increased" marketing
> opportunity solely because it is available. I think this mail is proof
> that it is going through a review/thought process which is great. :)
>
Skolelinux Debian _Associates_ perhaps ?? Debian Labs makes it seem
they develop/test on Debian's behalf and at Debian's request - which is
not quite corect.
>
> The problem becomes, once you open the gate for them, have you opened
> pandora's box? What happens when someone who you dont like what they do
> or the people involved with the project and they want to use the Debian
> name?
Agreed. We have enough trouble with rogue domain registrations and
the like.
>
> | It's quite unfortunate that they cannot use the Debian name because of
> | this reason since the Skolelinux project does an excellent job and
> | could generate good publicity for Debian when they emphasize their
> | relationship to Debian through their name. There are many good Debian
>
Alternatively -
If they're Debian developers and a valid Debian sub-project -
why not "sponsor" them in the same way that the FSF once sponsored
us and suggest a name change for the project to Debian Skolelinux ??
> This will be no easy task mind you. From what I have seen on the
> debian-legal list and debian-policy list it is hard to get a large
> number of Debian developers to agree on such matters, but I think it is
> the only way you can approach it without shooting yourself in the foot.
Too bloody right :)
>
> | I would like to ask for comments on this idea. Are people comfortable
> | with organizations calling themselves "<foo> Debian Labs" assuming
> | that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set
> | of guidelines (which are yet to be developed). Also, is there anyone
> | interested in helping develop these guidelines?
>
> I would be interested in being involved in such guidelines.
>
As would I.
Andy
Reply to: