Re: trademark licenses and DFSG: a summary
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Craig Small wrote:
> That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package.
> Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a
> "tentacles of evil" problem. Trademark isn't all about trust, it's
> also about control. We, unfortunately, cannot ignore it but we have
> to deal with it our way.
> All of the sections in the DFSG are important. We could of, when
> framing the DFSG, gone the easy path and not had a section 8 but we
> didn't. To me the requirements that we will not accept a
> Debian-specific trademark arrangement is as important as not accepting a
> Debian-specific license for exactly the same reasons.
> Both stances mean we cannot package stuff at times, or we have to fudge
> it with non-free. That to me is a perfectly acceptable trade-off.
> I completely agree with you that there will be problems with this stance
> but Debian is more than a technical group cranking out .deb files.
Definitely agreed, Debian-specific trademark licenses should not be
acceptable for main.