Re: Request for official help
MENGUAL Jean-Philippe writes ("Re: Request for official help"):
> Any vendor then has threee solutions:
> 1. Getting from Debian an official letter (see attached template) to
> say: a) we don't want any seller to send Debian without an EAN on a
> marketplace; b) we will not get our own EANs in the next two
> years. Such letter enable vendor to request for an EAN exemption
> laid on it.
This is odd. Are you sure about this - or have you dropped a "not"
If Debian did not want you to sell without an EAN then why would that
mean you should get an EAN exemption allowing you to sell without an
That seems backwards.
Currently I don't think Debian has an opinion about EANs but it is not
likely that Debian will issue a statement saying that we do not wish
things sold without EANs. After all, in fact, we are quite happy for
people to sell Debian CDs etc and we want to encourage that - EAN or
It is not part of our role to make statements supporting (or opposing)
the EAN system. OTOH we should do what we can to make it easy for
people who want to use such a system wrt physical artefacts embodying
or related to Debian.
> 2. Buying an EAN, but it does not worth to sell several things (eg
> architecture, live, installers, etc).
Why are EANs expensive ? Is it that getting an EAN prefix is
expensive ? Are there not arrangements for subdelegation ?
Also, is it really the case that Amazon Marketplace requires
everything sold to have an EAN ? That seems quite unlikely. There
must be lots and lots of small manufacturing (not to say "craft")
businesses who don't engage with this bureaucracy.
> 3. Getting an EAN from Debian organization itself, eg. on
> www.gs1.fr. Debian thus would pay for EANs for his releases, etc, and vendors would use them to sell Debian medias. But would be somewhat expensive and not sure it is useful and project-compliant.
I don't think there should be a single EAN for multiple different
physical manufacturing chains even if notionally-identical bits,
particularly as Debian would have no way of verifying or controlling
the content. So this does not work.