* Andreas Barth (aba@not.so.argh.org) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) [050907 14:02]:
> > 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.
>
> Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here
> (Germany) a non-commercial institution can do "business", as long as the
> "business" helps in reaching the institution's goals. And selling Debian
> T-Shirts falls into that aspect IMHO. ("Business" because it doesn't
> really always fall within the business laws.)
Perhaps there's a language misunderstanding here. Commercial *means*
selling things, at least where I'm from. What you're referring to seems
to be what I'd understand as a non-profit. These are two distinct
things. IANAL but I do believe that in the US a non-profit is similar
to what you call a 'non-commercial institution' in that it can sell
things provided it helps in reaching the goals and therefore is in the
public interest.
Either way, however, we do claim to not sell products. I hope there's
no misunderstanding on what that means. To me, selling t-shirts would
fall under selling products, and therefore would be commercial activity,
though not necessairly for-profit.
> > Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not.
>
> Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts
> and other stuff.
Selling things is exactly what being a commercial entity means. :(
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature