* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 14:02]: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use > > > the mark. Why should this selling association, which ignores > > > good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's > > > development association gets referred for negotiations? > > > > Because, quite simply, they are not a business, at least in the sense that > > was > > meant at the above. > > I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to > not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to > say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial > would be considered a business to us.
Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here (Germany) a non-commercial institution can do "business", as long as the "business" helps in reaching the institution's goals. And selling Debian T-Shirts falls into that aspect IMHO. ("Business" because it doesn't really always fall within the business laws.) > > I mean, take LinuxTag for example, there where guys there at the debian > > booth > > selling t-shirts and stuff, don't know the detail, but nobody bashed them > > for > > doing business in debian name, and i believe as long as the money is not > > given > > out to share-holders, but is for debian (either as plain donation, or > > expensed > > for debian related stuff, like stock renewal and the ocassional yearly > > party), > > then everything is fine and you are just silly in claiming the contrary. > Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts and other stuff. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]