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

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

<quote who="Martin Michlmayr" date="Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:24:53PM +0100">
> * Mako Hill <mako@debian.org> [2005-08-15 14:20]:
> > David, can we get something on the agenda for this? I do not have a
> > proposal but I would like to sound folks out and, if possible, have
> > Greg there as well.
> A proposal would be premature anyway imho.

In a more general sense, such a proposal is in fact very much overdue.

If you'd like, you can think of it as a document that may inform the
current decision in regards to the DCC. I certainly think we need to
make a decision sooner rather than later and I'm not suggesting we wait
for a policy.

As long as we want to keep the mark, the only two smart options we
have are pretty straight forward:

  1. SPI asks the DCC to not use the name (the course of action that
     is implied by the current policy);
  2. SPI gives the DCC a trademark license to use the name.;

The major problems we need to solve right now are:
  A. Deciding how Debian decides between 1 and 2;
  B. Deciding using that process on one of those two;
  C. If (2) was chosen, deciding what the terms of that trademark
     license would be;

Of course, the lines blur pretty heavily between those three steps.

We've only done one trademark license before and decisions to grant or
not to grant these (and the terms we require) have mostly been made by
the DPL with consultation of SPI's lawyer. They've been put into
action by SPI on behalf of the project. For a number of reasons, not
he least of which is the abounding conflicts of interests at play
here, that seems a little awkward now but may still be workable.

Greg and I are trying to get down our thinking for how a policy
relating to this stuff might be codified in the future. It doesn't
have to go into effect now to help provide some useful advice for
those doing it the old way.

> Has anyone actually brought forwards any good arguments against my
> posting arguing why we should not give them (or anyone else)
> exclusivity?

Exclusivity? As in, the idea of making a trademark license an
exclusive one in a given area or field? I think that would be a very
bad idea with Debian.


Benjamin Mako Hill

Reply to: