Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:40:48 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <20050725123051.GZ12210@yukidoke.org> <E1E0rPafirstname.lastname@example.org> <20050808003737.GM4781@nozomi> <E1E2HADemail@example.com> <42F8F741.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050819170033.GB5242@cyan.localnet>
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:34:41AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> This latest round was provoked by the DCC announcement. I participated
>> in the DCCA meeting yesterday evening. The organization has agreed to
>> call themselves the Debian Common Core Association in order to make it
>> more clear that they aren't in control of Debian. If other changes are
>> required, they will be cooperative.
> I don't think that helps -- the issue here seems (to me) to be the use
> of the word "core". The "core" of Debian is Debian, not some third party
> consortium or association or what have you, and naming the group does
> seem likely to cause confusion as to what the relationship between
> Debian and this group is.
Indeed it does.
> There were, at some point, some rumours that the group was going to be
> basing its product on Progeny's Componentized Linux; in which case it
> might be reasonable to call it the "Componentized Debian Consortium" or
> similar, which doesn't seem as likely to cause the confusion the word
> "core" does.
Debian-Based Distributions Consortium would work, I believe.
> Personally, I don't think any external project should be putting the
> words "core" and "Debian" together, whether its led by Ian Murdock or