Re: Draft: policy for vendors listed on Debian website
On 17 October 2011 20:40, Luca Capello <luca@pca.it> wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:12:34 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:25:16 +0200, David Prévot wrote:
>>> Le 13/10/2011 04:16, Luca Capello a écrit :
>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:23:42 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>>>>> - Vendor has to sell the "Official CD Debian images".
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: Even though vendors can send "additional CDs with unofficial
>>>>> software" I believe we should not list vendors which provide only
>>>>> "modified" CD Debian images.
>>>>
>>>> What is the rationale for that? "modified" could also means that they
>>>> change the default theme to their logo, for example, which I found fair.
>>>
>>> If the CD is modified, how would it be possible to check if it is indeed
>>> an official CD? It would brake the trust path…
>>
>> Point taken, but I still think that there are different levels of
>> modification.
>
> Just to be sure we are aware of our website (I was not), please note
> that, as Richard Atterer replied [1] at Francesca's initail email, we
> ATM specifically allow such modifications [2].
> [1] <http://lists.debian.org/20110307223248.GE23741%40meeep.lan>
> [2] <http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/info>
(sorry for the late reply, I'll try to bring closure to this
discussion, let's see if I manage to :)
Take into account that, while we allow for modifications, we do not
allow people to refer to these CDs as "official Debian CDs". If we
list vendors that distribute CDs that are not the official ones we
should explicitly label them in the list.
In any case, we don't say in that page that we will list any vendor
regardless of what they do with our brand or with the CDs. We do not
say that vendors have to provide "official Debian CDs" is the
requirements for listing vendors (see "Requirements for being added to
the vendor list" in that same page) but we do say: "The website should
offer the current stable Debian release".
>From my POV, that requirement rules out vendors that distribute
*modified* versions of the stable Debian release. That is, they can
provide the "official Debian CDs" of the stable Debian release AND
other modified CDs but they CANNOT just provide "custom stable Debian
release CDs".
If we want to consider the option of listing vendors that do not
distribute the official CDs for stable but, instead, provide modified
(unofficial) stable CDs the we should disctinctly mark them in the web
page. Users are typically interested in the official stable CDs,
pointing to vendors that do not provide them without warning them
beforehand might be:
- a disservice to our users
- a source of confusion and problems. Thinkg of what would happen if
user went to a vendor to purchase unofficial CDs thinking (as they are
linked from our web page) that they are the official CDs and are
"blessed" by the project.
Notice that this does not prevent us from listing vendors that ship
the official CDs and ship *addittional* CDs with software or
*additional* (properly labelled) custom versions in the same
website/store.
It also does not prevent vendors from distributing only modified CDs
on their own, we just will not list them in the vendors page.
For example, IMHO, we should not list vendors that *only* sell in
their site substantially modified versions of Debian (i.e.
derivatives) which could considered by some as being an "unofficial
modified Debian CD". I'm thinking of derivatives should as (in the
past) CoreLinux or any others that might come along.
> I am pointing it out to also understand if the policy Francesca and
> Javier were referring to will be added/merged with [2] or if it is a
> different thing.
I hope I have made my point clear. Is the above something you can
agree with? If so, and other members agree, I will commit changes to
the info page.
Regards
Javier
PS: If no consensus is reached maybe we should try IRC instead to
discuss this topic :)
Reply to: