* 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. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature