[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA

Don Armstrong wrote on 19/09/2005 23:04:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:27:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>>So, it's been three weeks, without any word that I've seen.
>>Now it's been four weeks since the delegation, a month since I
>>suggested Branden delegate this, and just under two months since
>>Florian Weimer brought the subject to this list's attention, and
>>there's _still_ been no response to the developers.
> This is primarily because there still is nothing concrete to
> report.[1] I will be preparing a summary of what has happened and is
> happening shortly; until that time, please bear with me as I attempt
> to resolve this issue without enflaming the situtation[2] further.

While I understand that you are busy (as well as the others who are
involved in this matter) and that you need to also talk to the lawyers
which help SPI, the members of the DCC Alliance themselves enflame the
situation further.
They announced that the DCC Alliance will support LSB 3.0. However,
every press item I saw on this matter reported that _Debian_ supports
LSB 3.0 (which isn't officially announced yet, as far as I know).

The DCC naming, especially their combined use of "Debian" and "core" is
causing a lot of confusion in press and userbase (quite some of my
customers asked me how this announced move to LSB 3.0 will effect their
servers - running pure Debian Sarge).

This matter needs to be resolved _quickly_ and in a way which eliminates
future confusion.

A naming like "common core for Debian based Distributions" would have
been a lot less confucing, and the resulting CCDD or CCDBD abbreviation
is still relatively easy to remember.


Reply to: