Peter Vandenabeele <peter.vandenabeele@mind.be> writes: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:18:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >> Please feel free to e-mail me at any time if you have questions or >> wish to make a comment on the usage of the trademark; I will (as >> usual) be participating on -project and -legal. > I am not a Debian Developer, but when I look at the DCCA naming > from the outside, it seems obvious to me that the word "core" is > the problem in the naming that was chosen. I currently interprete > the DCCA as an *external* initiative from a group of companies and > individuals to set-up commercially support for Debian and maybe > the business needs will require this group to define a slightly > separate product that is clsoe to but not quite exactly Debian > (certainly that product should be labeled differently, to avoid > any possible confusion). That's not a maybe, LSB-compliance is a definite goal and will require changes to some basic parts of the system, so it's a fact that there will be changes to Debian "sarge" before it's used as core. The planned release date in September suggests that the aim is full LSB 3.0 compliance, so even more changes will be needed. The "common" part seems to apply to the base of Debian derived distributions, that the real Debian isn't using the same packages makes it a little bit awkward. Marc -- BOFH #432: Borg nanites have infested the server
Attachment:
pgpELrWZxQgmv.pgp
Description: PGP signature