Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > This would make it clear to everyone, SPI included, that we ought to > grant the trademark licence, and it would stop MJ Ray's > shit-stirring by making it clear that he could bugger the whole thing > up but only if he can get a General Resolution (for which he wouldn't > even get quorum, of course, let alone a majority).
I do not want a strange not-for-profit *trading* as Debian here, instead of just holding donations for debian. It would compete with long-standing suppliers (debianshop.com?) and may deter UK commercial support, which needs to grow. The society will not solve its originally-stated problem well, if at all. A GR would be doubly useless on this: Debian-UK Society (DUS) is not bound by Debian GRs, so it would be indirect (perhaps to reverse a leader's trademark decision); and I suspect too few people care to reach quorum, which I won't blame them for. Also, I want no part of this society, nor for it to suggest support from me, and to avoid the inaccurate information it's using about me. Those are personal rights DUS should respect as the bare minimum to stop this and I need no GR for them. Think of those aims what you will. DUS ignoring personal choice and good practice is even more staggering after its chairperson's attack on DCC. Why not treat DUS and DCC similarly? Both are developer business initiatives presenting themselves as done deals using Debian's name, and DCC is a lot less secretive, as far as I can tell. The argument to give DUS's business preferential treatment should be a bit stronger than "not really controversial." Thanks for reading, -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]