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

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

<quote who="MJ Ray" date="Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:36:13AM +0100">
> There is a desirable position more liberal than the current
> almost-no- -commercial-use do you agree?

I think we should be as permissive as we can be and as close the
spirit of sharing and reuse in free software while still keeping our
users from being confused and while operating within the realm of
trademark law -- a realm that the DFSG was never designed to
address. I think this is only one area the current "policy" needs to
be improved.

> > > I am disappointed that a "general trademark policy" based on the
> > > DFSG is not being studied, but any clearer terms would be welcome.
> > The stated goal of the trademark committee was to come up a policy
> > that was as permissive as possible (in the DFSG sense) while still
> > operating within what is required by trademark law.
> I thought the stated goal was to elaborate the existing policy
> or develop a new "open use" trademark policy. If the open use
> policy is not possible, doesn't that leave only elaborate?

The last policy was written by Bruce very quickly for a mailing
list. It's served us reasonably well I suppose so I think it's worth
looking at but I've never been an advocate on putting that as the
place to start except to look at what we don't like when we discuss a
new policy. :)

> > Unlike copyright, failing to enforce or taking a completely
> > permissive attitude toward a trademark will actually lead you to
> > lose it.
> We have many users of the debian name running around,
> some told to the project.  The previous DPL stated the present
> trademark policy is "never enforced properly"[1] and also kept
> a list of known violations. Have we lost it yet or how much
> longer before we lose it?

We've followed up on a number of violations in the last years and,
under legal council, decided that some were not infringing and let
them be. Of the ones we've followed up, many have been fixed and
at least one trademark license has been drafted (although that wasn't
in response to a violation).

> > That may be fine with some in the project but my sense from
> > reading this thread and others is that most people in the project
> > like having Debian refer to stuff made by the Debian project and
> > not to anything by anybody.
> Is that incompatible with a trademark licence following DFSG?
> (It's not current practice, anyway.)

I don't know. I assumed (perhaps inaccurately) that you were implying
it wasn't in the message I replied to.

>>> When and where will spi-trademark report next?
> > There are periodic reports on trademark related issues to spi-private,
> > spi-general and (more frequently) spi-board.
> Cool. What's the period? I've looked back over 2005 for private and
> general and didn't spot one.

This year has been quieter than the last two years. It may be that
most of this has been on spi-trademark and spi-board (both closed
except or list members) in which case a report of the kind you are
advocating is certainly in order. There was, at least at first, a
representative of Debian on the SPI trademark committee. I'd have to
look at the resolution to find out what that was. I was the SPI Board

> When and where will spi-trademark report next?

This hasn't been discussed this with Greg, the SPI board, or the rest of the
committee. Let's talk on SPI trademark and find out how we can get
something (a report, a new agenda, etc) ASAP. If you're willing to
help, it will be sooner. I suspect any report would first be sent to
the SPI Board and the DPL and then to both the spi-general and to this

> > Help is certainly desired. If you help, it will be sooner. :)
> Help how? By joining the email list? Please ask spi-trademark-owner,
> then. I think there may be a problem with mailman, as I received two
> confirmation request emails to my most recent subscribe request.

Seems like a good start. I'll look into it.


Benjamin Mako Hill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: