Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see nothing on this that can be considered a Debian (as "The Debian > Project") problem, it's an internal problem of the Uk Debian Fellows [...]
Yes, mostly, you're right and they're not enough to act on. One possible debian problem is the use of db.d.o when DMUP forbids commercial use, but I don't know how that works in practice. > except for: > > * I don't like DUS carrying on business as "Debian-UK". > > So, are you suggesting that every group around the world, such as > debian-br, which does sell branding clothes and other stuff should take > a different name? I don't know debian-br and I didn't find enough explanation. Trading with "debian" in the name is an advantage against other local businesses who can sell debian CDs, isn't it? What does the project get in return for that advantage? In general, I think a group now should be called debian only if: 1. it's a debian subproject, OR 2. it's a local charity and got consensus BEFORE trading, OR 3. it's outside the scope of trademark infringement, because these things have big potential to reflect on debian. 1 offers debian some influence, 2 should ensure minimal "good governance" and debian influence and 3 we can't do much about. DUS seems neither subproject nor UK charity, but a business at present. If the long-standing "To be fair to all businesses, we insist that no business use the name "Debian" in the name of the business, or a domain name of the business"[1] is being changed, then I welcome that as a businessman, but I strongly believe we should continue "To be fair to all businesses" and do it in a consistent and non-discriminatory way. Is there a good argument for a series of one-off favours? [1] http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980306a Hope that explains it, -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]