* Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use > > the mark. Why should this selling association, which ignores > > good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's > > development association gets referred for negotiations? > > Because, quite simply, they are not a business, at least in the sense that was > meant at the above. I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial would be considered a business to us. > I mean, take LinuxTag for example, there where guys there at the debian booth > selling t-shirts and stuff, don't know the detail, but nobody bashed them for > doing business in debian name, and i believe as long as the money is not given > out to share-holders, but is for debian (either as plain donation, or expensed > for debian related stuff, like stock renewal and the ocassional yearly party), > then everything is fine and you are just silly in claiming the contrary. Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. I'd brought this issue up before (on d-d I believe) and got shot down by a number of people for proposing that we try to supplement our cash reserves by selling things and perhaps some day be able to pay for our own hosting, etc. > And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? Or is > it only restricted to software products ? That's an interesting question and not really very well phrased and so is kind of difficult to answer. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature