Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: [...]
> This would make it clear to everyone, SPI included, that we ought to
> grant the trademark licence, and it would stop MJ Ray's
> shit-stirring by making it clear that he could bugger the whole thing
> up but only if he can get a General Resolution (for which he wouldn't
> even get quorum, of course, let alone a majority).

I do not want a strange not-for-profit *trading* as Debian here,
instead of just holding donations for debian. It would compete
with long-standing suppliers (debianshop.com?)  and may deter
UK commercial support, which needs to grow.  The society will
not solve its originally-stated problem well, if at all. A
GR would be doubly useless on this: Debian-UK Society (DUS)
is not bound by Debian GRs, so it would be indirect (perhaps
to reverse a leader's trademark decision); and I suspect too
few people care to reach quorum, which I won't blame them for.

Also, I want no part of this society, nor for it to suggest
support from me, and to avoid the inaccurate information it's
using about me. Those are personal rights DUS should respect
as the bare minimum to stop this and I need no GR for them.

Think of those aims what you will. DUS ignoring personal choice
and good practice is even more staggering after its chairperson's
attack on DCC. Why not treat DUS and DCC similarly? Both are
developer business initiatives presenting themselves as done
deals using Debian's name, and DCC is a lot less secretive,
as far as I can tell.  The argument to give DUS's business
preferential treatment should be a bit stronger than "not
really controversial."

Thanks for reading,
-- 
MJR/slef