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

Re: DCCA name change and remaining issues

Don Armstrong wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> their FAQ still contains an enormous amount of misuse of the Debian
>> name, as noted in a message I sent on a different thread (and cc:ed
>> to them). I think this can all be fixed if they just rewrite it.
> Use of the trademark in a purely descriptive fashion is always
> permitted. FE, it is perfectly legal to say that your custom rod is
> based on a Ford Model T.
> The problem is with the usages that are not purely descriptive; a
> handful of those remaining still need to be corrected (the one that I
> can see right now is the "Debian Common Core" in the FAQ.)

It's the shortage of "based on" that's the problem.  
"Assemble a 100 percent Debian core..."

No, Debian does that.  What do they mean?

| The DCC is not a Linux distribution; it is a "base" Debian system composed
As they describe in the rest of the sentence, the DCC is not a "base" Debian
system, it's Debian packages plus member additions.

| of essential programs or "packages" from Debian GNU/Linux, combined with
| member additions to attain LSB certification and achieve broad
| commercial acceptance and support.   

| the DCC Alliance will serve as a single point of contact for software and
| hardware vendors who want to ensure that their products will work with
| Debian.  

No, Debian is that single point of contact.  Do they mean "will work with
Debian-based distributions"?

Anyway, I made a more detailed commentary on the problem sentences which
imply that DCC is somehow part of Debian or vice versa in the other

ksig --random|

Reply to: