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

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

* Ian Murdock (imurdock@progeny.com) wrote:
> Re the organization formerly known as the Debian Core Consortium: No
> need. We won't use the word Debian in the name--we'll call
> ourselves the DCC Alliance, where DCC stands for "Debian Common Core".

That seems somewhat better at least.

> Re Debian having a more restrictive trademark policy than
> Linux: Let's definitely talk about that. (I'm
> not on these lists, so please CC me on all correspondence.)

I've got to point out something here.  Linux came to be used to
reference much more than just the kernel.  The LMI folks understand that
and have been forced to accept that people call their OS's Linux even
though it's just the kernel.  Many of the uses of Linux have been along
those lines (LSB ain't really about the kernel...).

It's a *very* different situation for Debian.  Debian is a *specific*
OS, with its own distribution channels and everything.  So, in the end,
I don't feel it makes sense to draw this kind of a comparison when the
situation is fundamentally different.  I think it would be good to have
a more formal trademark policy and have it up on the web pages and
whatnot and encourage people to check with it before using the trademark
in an official capacity.  I don't feel it should necessairly be based
off of LMI's policy (have they even got one?  I didn't see anything
about why or why not a given submark would be granted or denied...),
though if we're gonna get into the business of granting submarks I do
feel we may need to recoup some of the costs associated with doing that.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: