Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks
Stephen Frost <email@example.com>
> * Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:57:20AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > 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.
> My initial answer to this, at least, is that I thought DUS was a
> not-for-profit organization. DCC is certainly made up of quite a few
> for-profit companies [...]
I believe that some of DUS's members are for-profit "sole trader"
businesses or controllers of for-profit commercial businesses
who are helped by promotion of debian. DCC's members are
for-profit commercial businesses who are helped by promotion of
debian. The main difference is that legal persons are members of
DCC directly while DUS involvement is via natural persons. That's
a good thing but is rather minor for commerce.
> My guess is that this is the whole 'commercial' thing. They sell
> things, therefore they must be bad. Not a sentiment I agree with but I
> believe that's part of the concern being raised by some here.
Not by me. I don't consider commerce evil.
My business aims to follow cooperative principles (a sort
of "social contract" for enterprises, if you like - see
http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html ) and I believe it's my
choice what businesses I am part of. I dislike attempts to make
me a member of an uncooperative business: Debian UK Society.
Some disputed whether it's a business, hence long explanations
about commerce, but I think it's as near as makes no odds.
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/