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

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

<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

 * If the technical committee can overrule a policy decision...
 * If the DPL is the highest official representative of the project or

...it is Debian. Otherwise, it probably isn't. Just an idea. 


Benjamin Mako Hill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: