Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-29 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:40:46PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:58:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > > Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like
> > > > being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing.
> > > True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- 
> > AIUI, in .au the purposes have to cover everything that the organisation
> > does, though. You could set up a charitable group that educates people on
> > how to use Debian, but that's all it can do. Or you could setup a group
> > to help the disabled by setting up Debian systems, but again, that's
> > all it could do. Which is nice and all, but not really very exciting.
> What about organizations that have a large set of vague goals like
> SPI?[1] It seems to me like we could do a whole hell of a lot with in
> those guidelines.

Again, AIUI, the organisations goals have to directly align with the
particular charitable purposes set out. If you do other things you're
not a charity, whether you do the charitable things or not. (While I'm
certainly no expert on this, I have talked to an accountant about it)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda


pgpIiA5ZRGk7O.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-29 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:11:31PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project 
Leader wrote:
> > Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict "Debian Labs" to groups
> > that are doing R&D rather than sales. Do you want to limit
> > consulting work too though?
> Well, if we don't, then any Debian consulting business can call
> themselves "Debian Labs" which is not what I'd like to see (if they do
> 100% consulting and don't put any work into Debian).  

Well, note that consulting and "putting work into Debian" aren't
necessarily mutually exclusive, and can be one and the same. You can
get a consulting job that says "write this program for me, GPL it,
and stick it in Debian", eg.

Even if you're just admining a bunch of Debian systems, you're likely to
end up writing useful scripts, or fixing bugs, or doing other development
work, and wanting to contribute that back to Debian.

> Perhaps
> consulting should be possible, as long as R&D is the main focus?

I'd say more that R&D should be the main focus, and the other stuff doesn't
much matter at all.

> > Not even Debian stable CDs? Why not, exactly? What conflict of interest do
> > you see here?
> Well, okay.  They can surely sell Debian CDs in order to fund more
> R&D.  (But they shouldn't call themselved "Debian Labs" in order to be
> in a better position to sell CDs in order to make a profit.)

Why not? Would you want to know that your $10 for a Debian CD goes to fund
Foo Debian Labs rather than Joes Pizza? Isn't that the way the FSF works?

(But they still shouldn't call themselves Debian Labs unless they actually
are doing useful stuff)

> Sure, I have no problem with this.  But Debian (the project) doesn't
> make money out of what we do

Sure we do. SPI collects it for us.

> and you could argue the same should
> apply to a Debian Labs (this is a big difference between Debian and
> Red Hat/Fedor, btw).

Mmm. I'm inclined to think that encouraging investment isn't necessarily
a bad thing here.

> > is their any salary limit? How about if they do it cheaper than any
> > competing support organisations, but still make a profit?
> Then they should clearly use the money (profit) to fund more R&D.

How about to pay back the guy who provided the rooms, computers and
connectivity when they started? Or the salaries while it was operating in
the red? How about compensating for the risk said guy undertook, given
the possibility that the research labs wouldn't ever become profitable
and he wouldn't get any money back?

Rather than just defending profits, let me put this another way.

Having donations just go straight from user's hands into shareholders'
pockets without ever providing any motive force to improve Debian isn't
useful. An alternative way of addressing this is just by providing better
information to everyone; eg letting users see what projects each Lab
is working on, whether they're a for-profit or not, seeing how much
has already been donated and how much has been donated in the past,
what their history of completing projects has been like, which developers
are employed there, stuff like that.

At worst, that sort of information at least gives the people working
there the ability to say "Hey, you got $1.3M in donations last year,
how come we got a pay cut, and had to solder our broken motherboards
back together ourselves?".

(Note that I don't really think this is of any interest to HP --
it's likely we'd have enough requirements to be a nuisance, and there
wouldn't be all that much money coming through anyway; but they're a
useful example)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda


pgpWP3b8CWxby.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill 
Sorry to be replying to this so late but the part of this thread that
is living on drew me back into this where I realized I had not
answered.

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:21:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >I am curious about why?  You state you don't want to see it, but
> >don't give any supporting argument.  I myself am always very
> >suspicious as to the motive of for profit companies appearing to
> >leverage Free Software projects.
> 
> Even "for profit companies" is a bit of a huge class of things to be
> upset with.  Most of them are just trying to earn some profit to
> live from.  Maybe "for-dividend companies" contain nearly all of the
> ones we should worry about?  Then again, excluding them is likely to
> involve "friendly fire" on our allies.

I'm not upset at for profit companies (I work for them and sometimes
think about starting one or two). In speaking of non-profits, I was
thinking more in line the line of some sort of legal "charitable
organization" status that, at least in the US, does not restrict the
ability to charge money and make a profit on a given transaction but
does restrict dividends and some of the other ways that money can be
spent. This use of "non-profit" is closer to NGO in many situations. I
think this was just confusion about terminology.

> >The contract/agreement that the entity using the "Debian Labs" name
> >signs or agrees to, should likely be a legal document drafted by 
> >lawyers.
> 
> Why would Debian want to increase the sums given to lawyers?  It 
> should be drafted as simply as possible by people concerned and then 
> secured by lawyers under advice.

SPI has access to pro-bono legal advice from some very good law firms
including one lawyer working specifically on trademark issues. Of
course, you are correct in saying we should list our goals and terms
as well as we can first.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgpCiAc4GjvVm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill 
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:58:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like
> > > being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing.
> > True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- 
> 
> AIUI, in .au the purposes have to cover everything that the organisation
> does, though. You could set up a charitable group that educates people on
> how to use Debian, but that's all it can do. Or you could setup a group
> to help the disabled by setting up Debian systems, but again, that's
> all it could do. Which is nice and all, but not really very exciting.

What about organizations that have a large set of vague goals like
SPI?[1] It seems to me like we could do a whole hell of a lot with in
those guidelines.

Regards,
Mako

[1] http://www.spi-inc.org/goals

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgpEllS3Eu3Y4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill 
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:43:18PM -0700, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> Is the only currently discussed benefit use of the "Debian"
> trademark?  If so, do you want to consider other benefits?  Some
> thoughts that come to mind would be allowing them some greater say
> in project issues.  However, personally I would hate to see that.

Luckily for you, I don't see anyway that our Constitution would allow
for this sort of influence in any sort of codified fashion.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgpzIeSAVDYqv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill 
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:15:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:47:15PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project 
> Leader wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns  [2003-09-20 17:07]:
> >
> > > By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, "HP
> > > Debian Labs".
> >
> > I'd also have no problems with this.  However, I also think that the
> > Debian Labs should not be used to make a profit.  I think a HP Debian
> > Labs should be of a similar nature as HP Labs which is a research
> > facility.

If there were a simple way to restrict the use of the name to research
and non-profit use within a for-profit organization, I don't think I'd
have a problem with it but...

> I suspect that HP shareholders think that they're using HP research labs
> to make a profit.

I also agree with this point. Rather than just using the lab for
"profit", I am worried about organizations using the Debian name to
create create a competitive advantage for their company in a
for-profit area where they are competing with other Debian-based
companies or in a way that could discourage other companies from
supporting Debian professionally.

If we can come up with a realistic, clear, and legal way of making
this distinction within a for-profit company, my reservations would be
much allayed.

> Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict "Debian Labs" to groups that
> are doing R&D rather than sales. Do you want to limit consulting work too
> though? 

These are only the first of many good questions you ask. I think that
one simple answer is: restrict the name Debian Labs to non-profits and
then don't worry about setting stringent policy about what they can
and can't do and when they can and can't use the name.

> > If they don't charge (or perhaps charge but not make a profit?) then
> > they can of course install Debian on systems.  
> 
> Isn't charging for your time making a profit?

No. Non-profits can offer consultancy services and charge. The just
can't funnel that benefit back to undue benefit of their members. 

> What if someone's employed by the same company to work part-time in a
> Debian Lab, and part time doing Debian support, together making up a
> single full time job? What benefit does that arrangement have over being
> full time employed in a single job, that does research in a Debian Lab
> and does Debian support?

If your point was that this is overly complex arrangement, I agree.

> > > Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular
> > > Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor
> > > particular developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar
> >
> > Yes, I think we could encourage people to give 1/2 of their donation
> > to SPI And 1/2 to a Debian Lab.

I think encouraging people to give some portion of their donations to
SPI is a great idea.

> The rules for donations are usually something like requiring they
> further the organisations interest, and aren't a quid-pro-quo
> arrangement. So if you go to a charity ball and pay $1000 to attend,
> that's not tax deductible because it was a payment for
> something. The extra $1000 that you donate when they bring a hat
> around is a donation. The $1000 raffle ticket you buy isn't.

I'm not sure what US law is like in these terms. We can check with our
lawyer if the answer is important and if SPI wants to go in this
direction.

> The main issue for tax is likely to be ensuring that donations
> aren't used as a tax avoidance scheme. Someone saying to HP, "hey,
> instead of paying you directly, I'll make a donation to your labs
> via SPI. muahahaha!" will get us all into trouble. And if we can
> avoid that, we'll probably avoid the other problems in so doing.

Agreed.

> FWIW, I'm in favour of requiring Debian Labs to be R&D focussed and to
> employ full time researchers, to provide debs of everything they develop,
> to focus on getting their successful research into main, and letting
> pretty much everything else develop as best it may -- having a focus
> doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else. I'm also in favour
> of letting people do tax-deductible donations to Debian Labs via SPI,
> if it's possible. Obviously Debian Labs will have to say "no" to some
> contracts if they want to keep the moniker -- ones that say "here's $5M;
> now make all your staff wear Microsoft suits and ties, and play Windows
> Solitaire all year", eg. But we shouldn't force them to ever say "no"
> to money for working on things that actually improve Debian, imo.

I think we're in agreement in most areas. I think the situation I'd
advocate is something like:

  SPI is very careful about who we license the Debian trademark to. We
  choose people that have done work with Debian in the past and that
  we have reason to believe will do a good job in the future. We have
  a strong bias toward organizations that are doing R&D in ways that
  help Debian but use the guidelines of Non-Profit status to
  demonstrate how the mo

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill 
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:58:22PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> IANAL, but I believe that according to US law there are limits on who
> non-profits can give money to: if the lab is not a non-profit
> corporation, SPI could not (in my understanding) give money to the
> lab.  OTOH, SPI could surely purchase services?
> 
> Could somebody with a better understanding of the law help here?

I can try.

SPI is a 501(c)(3) in the United States. This means that donations
from within the US are tax deductible. SPI doesn't pay taxes and you
can deduct your donation to SPI from your taxes according to a set of
rules the government lays out.

You're right is assuming that this tax exempt status introduces some
restrictions on how we can spend money.

At Debconf3 I gave the follow example:

  Developer X creates a trivial MP3 sorting script and throws it into a
  Alioth project. She then registers it as an SPI member project and
  donates USD 50K to SPI (marked for her project). She writes 50K off
  her taxes. She then has SPI buy her a car or a new computer or send
  her a pile of cash she uses to throw a coke orgy or something -- all
  tax free.

The major rule of thumb is that the members of the organization can't
benefit financially from the organizations decisions. Now, if SPI
wants to hire a consulting organization that's fine. If we hire one
unconnected to any SPI member there's no room for a problem. If we
hire one that is owned by a member, we need to be able to prove that
she is charging my normal rates and that those rates are competitive,
and such.

Additionally, 503(c)(3)'s can't spend money directly on politics. This
means we can't spend money lobbying congressmen and women or endorsing
candidates or donate to their campaigns. It's a little bit of a fuzzy
line though because we can *educate* people on a set of issues and,
AIUI, on how politicians stand in regards to an issue.

You're correct in your description. We can hire HP to do work for us
but we can't provide a way for HP to invest in itself tax-free. It can
sometimes be a fine line.

Does that clarify things at all (or at least clarify that things are a
little bit unclear)? :)

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgpCDxVtc5leD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader 
* Anthony Towns  [2003-10-09 17:15]:
> I suspect that HP shareholders think that they're using HP research labs
> to make a profit.

Sure, but they don't make a profit *directly*.  They're not selling
any stuff, they just do R&D.  Other parts of HP sell what they've
developed.

> Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict "Debian Labs" to groups
> that are doing R&D rather than sales. Do you want to limit
> consulting work too though?

Well, if we don't, then any Debian consulting business can call
themselves "Debian Labs" which is not what I'd like to see (if they do
100% consulting and don't put any work into Debian).  Perhaps
consulting should be possible, as long as R&D is the main focus?

> If I've got $50k to spend getting, say, Gnucash improved to better
> handle Australian accounting rules [0], does it make any real sense to
> exclude Debian Labs from any possiblity of working on it? If you do want

No, I think that's perfectly valid.  

> > Labs), but they shouldn't use HP Debian Labs direcetly to sell any
> > services or products.
> 
> Not even Debian stable CDs? Why not, exactly? What conflict of interest do
> you see here?

Well, okay.  They can surely sell Debian CDs in order to fund more
R&D.  (But they shouldn't call themselved "Debian Labs" in order to be
in a better position to sell CDs in order to make a profit.)

> (For reference, I joined Debian specifically because it doesn't
> discriminate against people trying to make money out of free
> software, even by building proprietary software on top of it --
> indeed, we go so far as to explicitly support such uses in a few
> ways)

Sure, I have no problem with this.  But Debian (the project) doesn't
make money out of what we do, and you could argue the same should
apply to a Debian Labs (this is a big difference between Debian and
Red Hat/Fedor, btw).

> is their any salary limit? How about if they do it cheaper than any
> competing support organisations, but still make a profit?

Then they should clearly use the money (profit) to fund more R&D.

> I agree (presuming the .5:.5 ratio is determined by the contributor,
> and can be 0:1 or 1:0 etc).

Yes, it should be up to the contributor.  Debian can just make a
suggestion; what they do is completely up to them.

> FWIW, I'm in favour of requiring Debian Labs to be R&D focussed and to
> employ full time researchers, to provide debs of everything they develop,
> to focus on getting their successful research into main, and letting
...
> Solitaire all year", eg. But we shouldn't force them to ever say "no"
> to money for working on things that actually improve Debian, imo.

Right, I agree.

(I know I didn't respond to all questions, but I don't actually have
answers for all of them.  I think your comments are incredibly useful
for this discussions, though, and hope others will comment on them.)

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-13 Thread Siward 
> By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle
> with, eg, "HP Debian Labs".

 Hello, everyone,

 I would like to suggest that names tell what the thing they are naming is.
 If something is Debian, then it is OK to call it 'Debian'
 if it is not, then it is not.

 This would have advantage that
   from a thing's name one could infer what that thing is.

 So if i'lld see 'HP Debian Labs',
  i would immediately know that this was
  - part of Debian community, and contributing to Debian's goals
  - officially intended by HP's central management to be
  the only Debian Labs in all of HP,
  at least for duration of period for which Debian granted use of
its name to these Labs.
  - not spending a major part of their efforts on
   anything else than advancement of Debian
   (motivated by that being beneficial to HP ofcourse).

 Frankly, something like
  'HP Springfield Debian-compatibility Labs'
  or
  'University of Oklahoma department of Debianology'
  seems more likely to me.

 I came to this thought by noticing that
   many softwares have too grandiose names,
   because they form such a large part of their developers's lives
   that they are named by a big name by them.
   (i think 'info' is an example of this)

 I hope this thought may be fruitfull for the Debian trademark discussion.

 have a nice day,

 Siward

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-12 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:58:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like
> > being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing.
> True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- 

AIUI, in .au the purposes have to cover everything that the organisation
does, though. You could set up a charitable group that educates people on
how to use Debian, but that's all it can do. Or you could setup a group
to help the disabled by setting up Debian systems, but again, that's
all it could do. Which is nice and all, but not really very exciting.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-11 Thread MJ Ray 
On 2003-10-11 21:58:30 +0100 Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

Disclaimer: Again, that's the approximate situation in Germany.


The situation is probably similar in most EU states by now.  In 
England and Wales (and probably rest of UK), "benefit of the 
community" or "benecom" is a sufficient charitable purpose, as long as 
it undertakes no disqualifying tasks, AIUI.  Other countries, like 
Australia, may have different rules, which I think covers the previous 
message.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-11 Thread Matthias Urlichs 
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:

> Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like
> being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing.

True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- you just have to work
harder convincing the tax people that your activity merits tax-exempting
donations. For instance, developing a free text-to-speech system would
probably qualify (it benefits blind people), while a free device driver
for controlling industrial robots probably wouldn't.

Disclaimer: Again, that's the approximate situation in Germany.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs   |   {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
 - -
:EOL: /E-O-L/ n. [End Of Line] Syn. for {newline}, derived perhaps from
   the original CDC6600 Pascal. Now rare, but widely recognized and
   occasionally used for brevity. Used in the example entry under {BNF}.
   See also {EOF}.

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-11 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > .au law is that you can't make donations for work on Debian
> > tax deductible.
> Why not?

Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules;
like being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing. As
opposed to just doing something socially beneficial. They can also be
named specifically by the minister.

You can be a non-profit easily, but that only means you don't have to
pay tax yourself, not that donators can claim a deduction.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-10 Thread Matthias Urlichs 
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:

> .au law is that you can't make donations for work on Debian
> tax deductible.

Why not?

In Germany, the way this works is that an organization sets up a list of
goals, and if these fall into some categories which define tax-exempt
status, the state grants that status to the organization (for a limited
time, subject to review); any activity of the organization which furthers
these goals is OK, thus donations earmarked for those activities are
also tax exempt.

Free Software isn't on the list of state-sanctioned goals per se, of
course, but some related goals and activities are (free public education,
for instance).

-- 
Matthias Urlichs   |   {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
 - -
INCOME VAX - What one shouts when the VAX is delivered.

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-10 Thread Dylan Thurston 
On 2003-10-10, Anthony Towns  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:58:22PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>> On 2003-10-09, Anthony Towns  wrote:
>> > Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in
>> > non-free?
>> non-free is not part of Debian.
>
> Mmm, slogans. Given that...
>
>> >> Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah.
>> > How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal
>> > doesn't?
>> It would be unusual if debian-legal had actually taken a look at it?
>> On this issue, I think a small amount of things like this would be OK,
>> but too much would be bad. =20
>
>=2E..you think that stuff that's not even supported by Debian is okay,
> why do you think that having Debian Labs people even occassionally
> providing software that's "not part of Debian" is an isue?

I don't; did I imply that?  By "this issue", I meant to include the
non-free packages case above.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Peace,
Dylan

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-10 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:58:22PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-10-09, Anthony Towns  wrote:
> >> > non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
> >> > stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?
> >> non-free/proprietary stuff, better not. =20
> > Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in
> > non-free?
> non-free is not part of Debian.

Mmm, slogans. Given that...

> >> Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah.
> > How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal
> > doesn't?
> It would be unusual if debian-legal had actually taken a look at it?
> On this issue, I think a small amount of things like this would be OK,
> but too much would be bad.  

...you think that stuff that's not even supported by Debian is okay,
why do you think that having Debian Labs people even occassionally
providing software that's "not part of Debian" is an isue?

(If you really want to mindlessly trade slogans, then how about "although
non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use" ? Why
is it a good idea for Debian Labs people to not abide by all of the
social contract?)

> > There are tax implications here [1]. The money goes:
> > donator * -> SPI * -> Lab -> employee *
> >   -> expenses
> >   -> profits *
> > with each "*" representing a point at which the government could end up
> > taking a cut. SPI being a tax-exempt non-profit allows the first to *'s to
> > disappear, if the appropriate rules are followed. ...
> Could somebody with a better understanding of the law help here?
> (Maybe that's you, aj, I'm just not sure.)

Note the .au in my email address. I don't have a lot of idea about
US law.  .au law is that you can't make donations for work on Debian
tax deductible.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda


pgpNY1W64BEg9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-09 Thread Dylan Thurston 
On 2003-10-09, Anthony Towns  wrote:
>> > non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
>> > stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?
>> non-free/proprietary stuff, better not. =20
>
> Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in
> non-free?

non-free is not part of Debian.

>> Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah.
>
> How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal
> doesn't?

It would be unusual if debian-legal had actually taken a look at it?

On this issue, I think a small amount of things like this would be OK,
but too much would be bad.  Maybe the developers should spend a
certain percentage of their time working on Debian proper?  But maybe
this gets too nit-picky.

> There are tax implications here [1]. The money goes:
>
>   donator * -> SPI * -> Lab -> employee *
> -> expenses
> -> profits *
>
> with each "*" representing a point at which the government could end up
> taking a cut. SPI being a tax-exempt non-profit allows the first to *'s to
> disappear, if the appropriate rules are followed. ...

IANAL, but I believe that according to US law there are limits on who
non-profits can give money to: if the lab is not a non-profit
corporation, SPI could not (in my understanding) give money to the
lab.  OTOH, SPI could surely purchase services?

Could somebody with a better understanding of the law help here?
(Maybe that's you, aj, I'm just not sure.)

> The rules for donations are usually something like requiring they further
> the organisations interest, and aren't a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

If I understand you correctly, these are the rules for SPI to receive
donations, not for SPI to give money to other groups, right?

Peace,
Dylan

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-09 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:47:15PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project 
Leader wrote:
> * Anthony Towns  [2003-09-20 17:07]:
> > By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, "HP
> > Debian Labs".
> I'd also have no problems with this.  However, I also think that the
> Debian Labs should not be used to make a profit.  I think a HP Debian
> Labs should be of a similar nature as HP Labs which is a research
> facility.

I suspect that HP shareholders think that they're using HP research labs
to make a profit.

Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict "Debian Labs" to groups that
are doing R&D rather than sales. Do you want to limit consulting work too
though? 

If I've got $50k to spend getting, say, Gnucash improved to better
handle Australian accounting rules [0], does it make any real sense to
exclude Debian Labs from any possiblity of working on it? If you do want
to limit forms of income like that, then you're going to end up limiting
Debian Labs to big companies that can support research groups internally,
or to groups that can't pay Debian hackers reasonable wages.

> HP Debian Labs could do development, research and market
> research.  HP could of course provide support for Debian and sell it,
> and also publizie their Debian expertise (including ther HP Debian
> Labs), but they shouldn't use HP Debian Labs direcetly to sell any
> services or products.

Not even Debian stable CDs? Why not, exactly? What conflict of interest do
you see here?

(For reference, I joined Debian specifically because it doesn't
discriminate against people trying to make money out of free software,
even by building proprietary software on top of it -- indeed, we go so
far as to explicitly support such uses in a few ways)

> > Is it appropriate for developers to hang "Debian Labs" on the
> > doorknob to their bedrooms or studies?
> I guess not really; it should be bigger than that.  "How big" is a
> difficult question, though.

Well, obvious possible distinctions from the doorknob scenario would be:

a) More than one researcher
b) Full-time, paid researchers
c) Accredited researchers

Is there a problem with a small business setting up a "Debian Lab"
by hiring a single Debian developer to do largely undirected Debian
development, at $200k/year, under the general philosophy that if Debian's
improved they'll be able to sell more hardware to more people, or make
higher profits otherwise? If so, that rules out (a).

(b) and (c) are probably not significantly different in effect.

> > Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as
> > development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems
> > and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to
> > be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or
> If they don't charge (or perhaps charge but not make a profit?) then
> they can of course install Debian on systems.  

Isn't charging for your time making a profit?

What if someone's employed by the same company to work part-time in a
Debian Lab, and part time doing Debian support, together making up a
single full time job? What benefit does that arrangement have over being
full time employed in a single job, that does research in a Debian Lab
and does Debian support?

> For example, I think it
> would be nice if they would go around and show Debian in schools and
> help them set it up.

If someone does support for schools fulltime, should they get to call
themselves a Debian Lab? If they don't make a profit? If they don't
pay their staff (ie, it's all volunteer)? If they do pay their staff,
is their any salary limit? How about if they do it cheaper than any
competing support organisations, but still make a profit?

I think Debian Labs should emphasise the research component, and set
a minimum level of quality, but leave worrying about profits to the
management and shareholders.

> > non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
> > stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?
> non-free/proprietary stuff, better not.  

Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in
non-free?

> Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah.

How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal
doesn't?

How about stuff that's under NDA and thus isn't free now, but will be
free later, potentially like AMD-64 stuff?

How about non-free stuff that they're trying to reimplement, or be
compatible with? If they're working on Samba, or Abiword, or Wine,
or Plex86?

> > Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular
> > Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor
> > particular developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar
> Yes, I think we could encourage people to give 1/2 of their donation
> to SPI And 1/2 to a Debian Lab.

I agree (presuming the .5:.5 ratio is determined by the contributor, and can
be 0:1 or 1:0 etc).

There a

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-10-05 Thread Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader 
* Anthony Towns  [2003-09-20 17:07]:
> By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, "HP
> Debian Labs".

I'd also have no problems with this.  However, I also think that the
Debian Labs should not be used to make a profit.  I think a HP Debian
Labs should be of a similar nature as HP Labs which is a research
facility.  HP Debian Labs could do development, research and market
research.  HP could of course provide support for Debian and sell it,
and also publizie their Debian expertise (including ther HP Debian
Labs), but they shouldn't use HP Debian Labs direcetly to sell any
services or products.

> Anyway, it's questionable what we want to have "Debian Labs" mean. Do we
> want it just to mean that there's a bunch of developers working in the
> same building on Debian stuff? Don't Progeny, HP and SkoleLinux already
> do all that?

Yes, I think that Progeny, HP and credativ are fulfiling functions
which could be classified as a "Debian Labs".  However, as described
above, a Debian Labs should be a subset of their activities.

> Is it appropriate for developers to hang "Debian Labs" on the
> doorknob to their bedrooms or studies?

I guess not really; it should be bigger than that.  "How big" is a
difficult question, though.

> Do we want it to imply something more than that, like people working
> in the Debian Labs should be employed fulltime to develop Debian? Is it
> enough that all the stuff they develop gets packaged and put in Debian?

Yeah, at least parttime, better fulltime.

> Or should they be employing fulltime one or more Debian developers
> without having any control over what they work on? If the latter, who
> should be saying what they work on?

No, I think they should have control over their employees.  Debian
Labs should be autonomous from Debian (but of course there should be a
good working relationship).

> Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as
> development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems
> and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to
> be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or

If they don't charge (or perhaps charge but not make a profit?) then
they can of course install Debian on systems.  For example, I think it
would be nice if they would go around and show Debian in schools and
help them set it up.

> non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
> stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?

non-free/proprietary stuff, better not.  Unpackaged/LSB, I think so,
yeah.

> Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular
> Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor
> particular developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar

Yes, I think we could encourage people to give 1/2 of their donation
to SPI And 1/2 to a Debian Lab.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-21 Thread MJ Ray 

On 2003-09-20 23:34:03 +0100 Derek Neighbors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
| not want to see commercial entities calling themselves 
Debian-anything


What are "commercial entities"?  As far as I can tell, nearly all DDs 
engage in some forms of commerce.



I am curious about why?  You state you don't want to see it, but don't
give any supporting argument.  I myself am always very suspicious as 
to

the motive of for profit companies appearing to leverage Free Software
projects.


Even "for profit companies" is a bit of a huge class of things to be 
upset with.  Most of them are just trying to earn some profit to live 
from.  Maybe "for-dividend companies" contain nearly all of the ones 
we should worry about?  Then again, excluding them is likely to 
involve "friendly fire" on our allies.



The contract/agreement that the entity using the "Debian Labs" name
signs or agrees to, should likely be a legal document drafted by 
lawyers.


Why would Debian want to increase the sums given to lawyers?  It 
should be drafted as simply as possible by people concerned and then 
secured by lawyers under advice.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-20 Thread Derek Neighbors 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Anthony Towns wrote:
| then we should act). But we're meant to be supporting our users, and not
| discriminating against them, so forbidding commercial entities outright
| from being involved just doesn't seem like a good first step.
|
| Hope that made sense.
I agree 100%.  I think that good criteria will be critical to help
ensure that Debian is not "abused" going into this type of adventure,
but outright discriminatory behavior should be avoided.

| Do we want it to imply something more than that, like people working
| in the Debian Labs should be employed fulltime to develop Debian? Is it
| enough that all the stuff they develop gets packaged and put in Debian?
| Or should they be employing fulltime one or more Debian developers
| without having any control over what they work on? If the latter, who
| should be saying what they work on?

| Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as
| development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems
| and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to
| be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or
| non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
| stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?

I think all of these are good questions, which answers should come in
form of the guidelines/criteria of being granted the "Debian Labs" name.

| Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular
| Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor particular
| developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar organisations
| to manage such donations to minimise the amount of tax that's cut from it?

I think doing this is more than "Debian" or "SPI" probably wants to get
into.  The "labs" should be responsible for getting their own funding.
Debian should be more concerned about getting users to fund Debian/SPI
than the labs.  If SPI/Debian in turn wanted to take some of their funds
and donate to a particular lab, I suppose that would be up to them.  I
just think the _administration_ of funds for others is an ugly venture
that would suck more time than it would return in benefit.

| Are there any other benefits that a group should or could receive from
| being called a "Debian Lab" ?

Is the only currently discussed benefit use of the "Debian" trademark?
If so, do you want to consider other benefits?  Some thoughts that come
to mind would be allowing them some greater say in project issues.
However, personally I would hate to  see that.  One thing I have admired
about Debian is that it really is individuals running the show, not
groups, organizations or corporations.  Giving these *labs* any sort of
inherit benefit over an individual Debian developer would be dangerous
(imo) to the balance of Debian.  It would be great to hear others
opinions on the subject and potential other benefits that wouldnt upset
balances of power.

Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnue.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/bNgGHb99+vQX/88RAp/oAJ9yiIjdEZhoxnFl8gvT60LLHRH2XgCgqmB8
gI+QArHpcz9YGXXLuF/MCV0=
=0Jef
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-20 Thread Derek Neighbors 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
| You weren't explicit about the non-profit aspect in the message in any
| sort of categorical way but I want to step forward and say that I do
| not want to see commercial entities calling themselves Debian-anything

I am curious about why?  You state you don't want to see it, but don't
give any supporting argument.  I myself am always very suspicious as to
the motive of for profit companies appearing to leverage Free Software
projects.  However, I will say that if good ground rules are laid down
and policy in place that must be adhered to, I don't readily see why any
for profit company willing to obey the guidelines should be excluded.

| and am not sure from a trademark perspective, this would be a wise
| choice at all.

If you want to protect trademark, then I suspect not letting *anyone*
use it is the safest approach.  Not necessarily the best, but the safest.

| The line I want draw here, and I think you're saying the same thing,
| is that we'd be explaining to people what the "XXX Debian Labs" means
| and why it is different than Debian. We should *not* create a list of
| criteria that if you or your organization matches, you automatically
| get to start using the name. I think this needs to be dealt with on a
| case-by-case basis.

It should be a submission and review process.  However, I think there
should be criteria/guidelines that are the starting point.  (i.e. if you
don't meet X then you are automatically disqualified from acceptance)
This makes acceptance much more equitable.

|>Also, is there anyone interested in helping develop these
|>guidelines?
|
|
| I foresee two sets of guidelines that need to be written. The first is
| the one that we (non-lawyers and probably Debian developers) write
| that explains what we think, in broad terms, Debian-Labs should
| mean. This is what we put on our website.

Probably the "criteria" of what one needs to do in order to be accepted
to use the "Debian Labs" name so to speak should be a Debian project
development.

| The second set of guidelines is the Trademark License Agreement that
| specifies, in legal terms, the guidelines we've specified above. This
| is what the actually organizations agree to. It will need to be
| written up by our lawyers.

The contract/agreement that the entity using the "Debian Labs" name
signs or agrees to, should likely be a legal document drafted by lawyers.

| In terms of the first, I began work on this a week and a half ago as
| part of a larger project to define, at this sort of level, the
| relationship between Debian, SPI, and several types of affiliated
| organizations. Of course, I'd very much welcome help and I'll contact
| the people who responded to this off-list to see about collaboration.

At one point, we were doing something similar with Free Software
Foundation Europe called the GNU Business Network.  It different in many
ways, but very much was in process of drafting acceptable criterion for
businesses to agree to for membership.

You can find some early drafts here

http://www.gnuenterprise.org/~dneighbo/gnubiz/

Likely most of the document is irrelevant.  However, the criteria
section might be of some use to draw off of.

Just thoughts.

Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnue.org



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/bNXbHb99+vQX/88RAhTHAJ9LTy1XRSSKuFp/Zpxhak4BOK9t4wCgje3R
15EGZg4zPEKscS8hLdsI0wY=
=Sve5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-20 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:19:52PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> You weren't explicit about the non-profit aspect in the message in any
> sort of categorical way but I want to step forward and say that I do
> not want to see commercial entities calling themselves Debian-anything
> and am not sure from a trademark perspective, this would be a wise
> choice at all.

By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, "HP
Debian Labs". As far as the trademark stuff goes, I think it'd be a
problem if we forbade companies from saying that they work on Debian;
sure, we should use the name and logos and such to make it clear what
sort of association projects have with Debian (and if it's misleading
people as to what's actually going on like "Trusted Debian" was, or
if there's no relationship at all like there is with cybersquatters,
then we should act). But we're meant to be supporting our users, and not
discriminating against them, so forbidding commercial entities outright
from being involved just doesn't seem like a good first step.

Hope that made sense.

Anyway, it's questionable what we want to have "Debian Labs" mean. Do we
want it just to mean that there's a bunch of developers working in the
same building on Debian stuff? Don't Progeny, HP and SkoleLinux already
do all that? Is it appropriate for developers to hang "Debian Labs"
on the doorknob to their bedrooms or studies?

Do we want it to imply something more than that, like people working
in the Debian Labs should be employed fulltime to develop Debian? Is it
enough that all the stuff they develop gets packaged and put in Debian?
Or should they be employing fulltime one or more Debian developers
without having any control over what they work on? If the latter, who
should be saying what they work on?

Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as
development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems
and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to
be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or
non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?

Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular
Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor particular
developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar organisations
to manage such donations to minimise the amount of tax that's cut from it?

Are there any other benefits that a group should or could receive from
being called a "Debian Lab" ?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda


pgpTxw5b5MUhn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-20 Thread Benj. Mako Hill 
Martin, I want to applaud you for a taking the time to think through
this as much as you have. I think this is an elegant way to draw a
distinct line between Debian the project and non-profit work on Debian
while still letting charitable organizations be able to bear the
Debian name.

You weren't explicit about the non-profit aspect in the message in any
sort of categorical way but I want to step forward and say that I do
not want to see commercial entities calling themselves Debian-anything
and am not sure from a trademark perspective, this would be a wise
choice at all.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 01:16:28AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project 
Leader wrote:
> We could create a "Debian Labs" brand and publicize what it means for
> an organization to carry that name.

The line I want draw here, and I think you're saying the same thing,
is that we'd be explaining to people what the "XXX Debian Labs" means
and why it is different than Debian. We should *not* create a list of
criteria that if you or your organization matches, you automatically
get to start using the name. I think this needs to be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis.

> Also, is there anyone interested in helping develop these
> guidelines?

I foresee two sets of guidelines that need to be written. The first is
the one that we (non-lawyers and probably Debian developers) write
that explains what we think, in broad terms, Debian-Labs should
mean. This is what we put on our website.

The second set of guidelines is the Trademark License Agreement that
specifies, in legal terms, the guidelines we've specified above. This
is what the actually organizations agree to. It will need to be
written up by our lawyers.

In terms of the first, I began work on this a week and a half ago as
part of a larger project to define, at this sort of level, the
relationship between Debian, SPI, and several types of affiliated
organizations. Of course, I'd very much welcome help and I'll contact
the people who responded to this off-list to see about collaboration.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benj. Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgpMTHfCXv6kE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-20 Thread Benj. Mako Hill 
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:44:59PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader, 2003-09-16 17:20:18 +0200 :
> [...]
> > I would like to ask for comments on this idea.  Are people comfortable
> > with organizations calling themselves " Debian Labs" assuming
> > that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set
> > of guidelines (which are yet to be developed).  Also, is there anyone
> > interested in helping develop these guidelines?
> 
> I like the idea, but I could understand if people were still a bit
> uncomfortable with it.  I myself am not quite sure I'd like such a
> prominent place for the word "Debian" (but I haven't thought really
> deeply about that yet).  Just a quick idea for them (us?): these Labs
> could be called something like " D-Labs" (which would call for a
> footnote explaining what the D stands for, hence giving us more room
> for publicity than just the Debian in the name).  Or, equally
> straight-from-my-imagination-without-checking-brain, " Swirl
> Factory" or something around these lines.  Again, a footnote would be
> called for.

Yes, but one could drop the "Swirl Factory" or "D-Labs" completely and
stick in a footnote saying the project was Debian based and it would
be equivalent. The point of the "Debian Labs" model is that highlights
the close relationship to Debian in the title in a very explicit way.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benj. Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgpi1e4vlCOHR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-17 Thread Andrew M.A. Cater 
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 07:25:37AM -0700, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I think great caution should be exercised here.  One thing Debian
> appears to take very seriously is it's social contract and the
> evaluation of the licenses of the packages it puts in main.  I think
> that Debian should not blindly jump on an "increased" marketing
> opportunity solely because it is available.  I think this mail is proof
> that it is going through a review/thought process which is great. :)
> 
Skolelinux Debian _Associates_ perhaps ?? Debian Labs makes it seem
they develop/test on Debian's behalf and at Debian's request - which is
not quite corect.

> 
> The problem becomes, once you open the gate for them, have you opened
> pandora's box?  What happens when someone who you dont like what they do
> or the people involved with the project and they want to use the Debian
> name?

Agreed. We have enough trouble with rogue domain registrations and
the like.

> 
> | It's quite unfortunate that they cannot use the Debian name because of
> | this reason since the Skolelinux project does an excellent job and
> | could generate good publicity for Debian when they emphasize their
> | relationship to Debian through their name.  There are many good Debian
> 
Alternatively -

If they're Debian developers and a valid Debian sub-project -
why not "sponsor" them in the same way that the FSF once sponsored
us and suggest a name change for the project to Debian Skolelinux ??

> This will be no easy task mind you.  From what I have seen on the
> debian-legal list and debian-policy list it is hard to get a large
> number of Debian developers to agree on such matters, but I think it is
> the only way you can approach it without shooting yourself in the foot.

Too bloody right :)
> 
> | I would like to ask for comments on this idea.  Are people comfortable
> | with organizations calling themselves " Debian Labs" assuming
> | that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set
> | of guidelines (which are yet to be developed).  Also, is there anyone
> | interested in helping develop these guidelines?
> 
> I would be interested in being involved in such guidelines.
> 
As would I.

Andy

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-17 Thread Derek Neighbors 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I am not a Debian developer so probably have no right to interject
opinion here, but that have never stopped me in the past. ;)

Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
| They are currently in the process of setting up a non-profit
| foundation and have approached me and some SPI members to discuss the
| name of this foundation.  Given their close relationship to Debian,
| they wanted permission to call the foundation "Debian Foundation
| Norway".  This would increase the visibility of the Debian name, and
| make it more visible that Skolelinux is based on Debian.

I think great caution should be exercised here.  One thing Debian
appears to take very seriously is it's social contract and the
evaluation of the licenses of the packages it puts in main.  I think
that Debian should not blindly jump on an "increased" marketing
opportunity solely because it is available.  I think this mail is proof
that it is going through a review/thought process which is great. :)

| I like what Skolelinux does and, knowing the people involved in the
| project, I'd have no problem per se of them using the Debian name.

The problem becomes, once you open the gate for them, have you opened
pandora's box?  What happens when someone who you dont like what they do
or the people involved with the project and they want to use the Debian
name?

| However, I hold the belief that "Debian" should not pay developers.

This is a smart thing.

| It's quite unfortunate that they cannot use the Debian name because of
| this reason since the Skolelinux project does an excellent job and
| could generate good publicity for Debian when they emphasize their
| relationship to Debian through their name.  There are many good Debian

The other problem becomes, what happens when the relationship sours?
Money has a funny way of affecting peoples behavior.  When they have a
significant amount of people basing their livelihood on some funding
source and that source asks them to do things not in alignment with
Debian.  What happens then?

| based projects out there and many users are not aware that what they
| use is actually based on Debian (KNOPPIX is a good example for this).
| So I tried very hard to come up with a compromise and in the end had
| an idea which I think offers a good balance.  What I suggest is that
| certain organizations should be allowed to use the name "Debian Labs"
| in their name.  Hence, Skolelinux could create its foundation with the
| name "Skolelinux Debian Labs" [4].  This would clearly show that a)
| they are doing Debian related work and b) they are not Debian itself.

I think this a possible solution, with many things that need definition.

| We could create a "Debian Labs" brand and publicize what it means for
| an organization to carry that name.  Since we own the Debian
| trademark, we can control who is allowed to use the "Debian Labs"
| brand.  We have to develop a set of guidelines for this.  So in some
| sense Debian has some control over what those organizations do.  On
| the other hand, they are largely autonomous of Debian and can do with
| their money whatever they want -- that way, "Debian" wouldn't need to
| decide who to hire, etc, and could avoid the problems described in the
| mail mentioned above.

This is where you have hit the nail on the head so to speak.  You
absolutely need these guidelines.  I think there needs to be clear
guidelines as to what such an organization has to do in order to be
acceptable to use the "Debian Labs" name.  Also, there has to be some
guidelines as to acceptable behavior after they have received that
right.  There needs to be procedures that all revocation of the name as
well.

This will be no easy task mind you.  From what I have seen on the
debian-legal list and debian-policy list it is hard to get a large
number of Debian developers to agree on such matters, but I think it is
the only way you can approach it without shooting yourself in the foot.

| I would like to ask for comments on this idea.  Are people comfortable
| with organizations calling themselves " Debian Labs" assuming
| that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set
| of guidelines (which are yet to be developed).  Also, is there anyone
| interested in helping develop these guidelines?

I would be interested in being involved in such guidelines.

Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQE/aG7hHb99+vQX/88RApDcAJ44saMpGWvn7F+yWjDJtQ/+8VSvrwCYhLwy
Ud2SdvAuCogD3sknLfollg==
=66rH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-17 Thread Alexander Schmehl 
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030916 17:16]:

> I would like to ask for comments on this idea.  Are people comfortable
> with organizations calling themselves " Debian Labs" assuming
> that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set
> of guidelines (which are yet to be developed).

That sound pretty good to me; organization which do good work for
Debian should definitly be honoured and allowed to show their support
(and advertise Debian ;)


> Also, is there anyone interested in helping develop these guidelines?

Taking a look at my Todo-List: No, sorry. But I would like to read and
comment it.


Yours sincerely
  Alexander


pgp1jJYiCBsdA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-16 Thread James R. Van Zandt 

Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> What I suggest is that certain organizations should be allowed to use
> the name "Debian Labs" in their name.  Hence, Skolelinux could create
> its foundation with the name "Skolelinux Debian Labs" [4]. 

Sounds good to me.

   - Jim Van Zandt

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-16 Thread Matthias Urlichs 
Hi,

Roland Mas wrote:
> I myself am not quite sure I'd like such a
> prominent place for the word "Debian" (but I haven't thought really
> deeply about that yet).

Neither have I, much, but I _do_ like the prominence of "Debian".

IMHO the name " Debian Labs", with a footnote that Debian is
a trademark of SPI and that DL is an independent organization / part of
, would work very well.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs   |   {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
 - -
:copy protection: n. A class of methods for preventing incompetent
   pirates from stealing software and legitimate customers from using it.
   Considered silly.





pgp4uK2rtouNp.pgp
Description: signature

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-16 Thread Roland Mas 
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader, 2003-09-16 17:20:18 +0200 :
[...]
> I would like to ask for comments on this idea.  Are people comfortable
> with organizations calling themselves " Debian Labs" assuming
> that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set
> of guidelines (which are yet to be developed).  Also, is there anyone
> interested in helping develop these guidelines?

I like the idea, but I could understand if people were still a bit
uncomfortable with it.  I myself am not quite sure I'd like such a
prominent place for the word "Debian" (but I haven't thought really
deeply about that yet).  Just a quick idea for them (us?): these Labs
could be called something like " D-Labs" (which would call for a
footnote explaining what the D stands for, hence giving us more room
for publicity than just the Debian in the name).  Or, equally
straight-from-my-imagination-without-checking-brain, " Swirl
Factory" or something around these lines.  Again, a footnote would be
called for.

  Just suggestions for nitpickers, obviously.  The basic idea appeals
very much to me.

Roland.
-- 
Roland Mas

C   c ee lm  re q   j  l   a l  l  iè e  .
  -- Signatures à collectionner, série n°1, partie 3/3.

Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea

2003-09-16 Thread Raphael Hertzog 
Le Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 01:16:28AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project 
Leader écrivait:
> an idea which I think offers a good balance.  What I suggest is that
> certain organizations should be allowed to use the name "Debian Labs"
> in their name.  Hence, Skolelinux could create its foundation with the
> name "Skolelinux Debian Labs" [4].  This would clearly show that a)
> they are doing Debian related work and b) they are not Debian itself.

I like this idea. The similarity with RedHat Labs doesn't hurt imho.

> I would like to ask for comments on this idea.  Are people comfortable
> with organizations calling themselves " Debian Labs" assuming
> that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set
> of guidelines (which are yet to be developed).  

Yes, it looks like something doable.

> Also, is there anyone interested in helping develop these guidelines?

I'm not interested in doing it, but I'm interested in it and would
probably comment on anything that comes out of it.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org