<quote who="Steve Langasek" date="Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:18:46PM -0700"> > Out of curiosity, does Debian's trademark policy currently say > anything about use of the Debian mark by customized Debian > distributions (in contrast with Debian derivatives)? No. The assumption I've personally operated under was that Debian referred not to a single lump of code but to the thing(s) created by the Debian project. In many cases, the fundamental difference between CDDs and other derivations is that they are operating from within the project (e.g., working on Debian lists, pushed primarily by Debian developers, hosted on the Debian website or other Debian machines, conforming or working toward conformance under Debian policy, etc.). Since these are produced by Debian (or at least some subset of Debian ), calling them Debian makes a lot of sense. > Everything I've seen on the subject indicates to me that this "DCC" > will be a CDD. You make a good point that we don't really know *what* DCC will be so all of these judgements stand a good chance of being premature. :) Certainly the answers to questions like this make a big difference. > Since CDDs *are* Debian (i.e., a strict subset of the packages that > we ship, together with optional config/install glue), I think it's > in our interest that they also be called Debian. I think it's in our interest to ensure that people know the pedigree of distributions derived from Debian but we should do that while keeping relatively tight reigns on what is and is not Debian for both legal reasons and to help avoid confusing our users. Two tests might be: * If the technical committee can overrule a policy decision... * If the DPL is the highest official representative of the project or subproject... ...it is Debian. Otherwise, it probably isn't. Just an idea. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.cc/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature