[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

* Ian Murdock (imurdock@progeny.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Ian Murdock (imurdock@progeny.com) wrote:
> >>Lest this be misinterpreted, let me clarify that the DCC
> >>group will abide by whatever Debian's trademark policy is. "My
> >>response" has to do more with how that trademark
> >>policy appears to be inconsistent with Debian's founding goals.
> > 
> > My response has more to do with trademark *law* and common courtesy than
> > about Debian's founding goals, or Debian's founder for that matter.
> You have a point about common courtesy. Sorry about that. And I do
> agree about the Debian's founder part. But if the trademark policy
> isn't in pursuit of Debian's founding goals, isn't something wrong?

Honestly, I havn't been talking about Debian's policy regarding it's
trademark at all.  I'm not saying you *wouldn't* be granted the submark,
I'm saying that you can't just assume you'd get it (or that you could
use the trademark Debian, in a larger mark or by itself, to describe 
something not exactly Debian), and that you should ask for an official
submark before using the term with the press.  

As someone else mentioned, I'm not really thinking "Debian Core 
Consortium" is something Debian/SPI *should* grant as a submark to 
something which seems to be outside of Debian (and, indeed, a set of 
for-profit companies..  not that I have anything against for-profit 
companies, but they're *not* what Debian was founded as, and I wouldn't 
want people to get the wrong idea about Debian by seeing that it's 
'Core Consortium' is a set of for-profi companies...).  That's my
personal feeling, and seperate from any official trademark policy which
Debian/SPI has.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: