Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:53:00 +0100
- Message-id: <E1EAoYufirstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20050830121426.GG11926@einval.com>
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Yawn. You complained and complained and complained in this vein on the
> debian-uk mailing list. When several people went and did their own
> research into how best to set things up and disagreed with you, you
> finally stopped that. Now you've come over to d-project in an apparent
> attempt to say "Look! These people are doing dodgy things I don't
> like! Please stop them!"
I'm arguing for an even-handed approach to the Debian trademark.
I didn't initiate this discussion. The chairperson of your
business argued against letting another one use the trademark.
See the last-but-one paragraph below for how this can end.
Over on the -uk list, some researchers were basically helpful,
but I think some were clearly searching to prop up the done
deal, rather than looking into how best to set things up. For
example, some ask about "association accounts" when talking to
banks, which assumes that's the best way. There's a bit of good
experience, but also some stuff which looks like prejudice.
That's not interesting, though. I don't care about DUS except:
1. I want no connection with it right now; including
2. I want it not to hold my personal details (especially not
the inaccurate personal details it currently uses).
I think there are reasons to dislike it, not enough to act on:
* DUS was developed at a meeting for another purpose and just
announced to those (is Cambridge the new Vancouver?).
* It has a very weak link to the debian project.
* Its leadership discourage and belittle democratic control -
it looks like bureaucratic empire-building, to maximise the
number of members but have none of the responsibilities.
* Opt-out membership associations seem a very shady practice -
can anyone clearly opt-out without DUS recording personal data?
* Its beer-mat constitution does not cover some basic points.
* I doubt the will/ability of DUS to follow regulations.
* I don't like donations marked "debian" endangered.
* I'm not a fan of bureaucracy or hierarchy, nor do I see the
benefit of them for DUS.
* I don't like DUS carrying on business as "Debian-UK".
* DUS leaders and members suggest things are lies when they
are actually either different opinions or true.
Ask yourself: why I am doing this? It's not pride or to troll.
It's because you involved me against my will and I think you've
created a buggy org that you're unwilling to fix, even to allow
UK-resident DDs to be totally unconnected. As I wrote before,
the remaining bugfix is messy, but it's the only one I see.
I see three possible ways forwards:
1. DUS is repaired minimally, to be opt-in not opt-out, but
your constitution offers no amendment, so I don't see how;
2. willing DUS members reform as something sounder and don't
try to contaminate other developers with their legal toys; or
3. I slowly work through "Not In Our Name"-style tactics.
Agreeing with DUS's chairman that such business partnerships
shouldn't be named debian was just an opportunity that appeared.
MJ Ray (slef)