On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 08:52:51AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote: > > WA> `official license' > WA> I. may only be used if: a) the product it is used for is made > WA> using a documented procudere we make (for example official > WA> CD-creation) b) if we give approval for its use > > WA> II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the > WA> rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear > WA> that only this part is officialy approved > > WA> III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if > WA> (some conditions here) > > Sure, whatever. As long as the liberal version of the logo is at > least as free as verbatim copying, I don't have a serious problem with > any of these conditions for the official logo. > > Having said that, my personal preference would be to simply say that > the `official license' cannot be used to advertise any non-free > software, and furthermore cannot be distributed with a CD unless that > CD is made via documented procedures. > > Perhaps a special exception would be made to allow the inclusion of an > ``official Debian non-free CD'' with such a CD set, but I'd prefer > that non-free never be branded as ``official''.
In the case where a vendor distributes the Official Debian CD set plus a disk containing non-free software they should be allowed to use the term Official Debian CD as long as they mention the set contains additional material. For example, 'Official Debian CD + Wordperfect 8.0'. Jay Treacy