Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 04:50:31AM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, confusion dosn't benifit any of the parties.
Unfortunately, whenever there is a chance for confusion,
people seem to leap at that chance, and the press seem
particularly adept at this.
--
Horms
Reply to: