DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
Don Armstrong writes (Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA): Branden Robinson (Debian Project Leader) has delegated to me the authority to make a decision regarding the use of the Debian trademark by the (as currently named) Debian Core Consortium Alliance. [...] I'm sorry to say that I'm wholly dissatisfied with the lack of progress on this front. DCCA's naming is causing confusion, as can be seen from news reports, etc. The current situation still gives a clear impression that they are the official custodians of Debian's core. This is very harmful to Debian. The Debian Project must remain the ultimate source of authority for technical decisions in the Debian ecology. DCCA's behaviour gives many other people the impression that they are in charge; when DCCA's software differs from Debian, those other people will not even know about the difference and will assume that DCCA's software is canonical. This will make life more difficult for Debian and eventually detract from Debian's control over its own future. It is time for us to stop pussyfooting around. Asking DCCA nicely hasn't resulted in them changing their name voluntarily. Furthermore, we risk losing the trademark if we allow DCCA to continue without either our permission or our action against them. We should now threaten enforcement action, giving a suggested acceptable name for which we would be willing to issue a licence. If they don't like our suggestion we should give them 14 days to publicly propose a list of at least ten alternatives, which we will individually deem acceptable or not. Given that public opproprium and private negotiation haven't worked, we must conclude that our politeness and forbearance is being exploited. We should therefore take a tough line. We should insist on the inclusion of the word `Derivatives' and the exclusion of the word `Core'. So I propose that we initially offer `Debian Deriviatives' Cooperation Association'. Note that this is OUR decision, not theirs. We are not legally obliged to take their views into consideration and given their lack of consideration for our views I don't think we are morally obliged to do so either ! On my personal position: I speak here as a Debian Developer, and also wearing my hat as the Chairman of the Debian Technical Committee, and also wearing my SPI Board Member hat. However, as an SPI Board Member I recognise that it is not for the SPI Board to make this decision; the decision must be taken by Debian. If Debian, represented here by Don, fails to give the SPI Board appropriate directions then the SPI Board will have to make it up although of course we should tread cautiously. In the absence of direction from Don I would support Board resolutions criticising Debian for a lack of direction, and resolutions publicly criticising DCCA, but not at this stage a unilateral decision by the Board to threaten legal action against DCCA. But, if Don fails to make appropriate decisions then as a Debian developer I will want to use Debian's internal channels to achieve what I see as a satisfactory outcome. I haven't yet decided whether for example it might be useful for a General Resolution to deappoint Don and appoint some hothead like myself in Don's place. Ian. PS: Don's message that I quote above was posted to debian-private but the fact of his appointment is not secret and the words I have quoted are uncontroversial so I have taken the liberty of selecting what seem to me to be more appropriate venues for this discussion. The alternative, to paraphrase Don's words, seems silly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 12:22:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: It is time for us to stop pussyfooting around. Asking DCCA nicely hasn't resulted in them changing their name voluntarily. http://ianmurdock.com/?p=274 They have, just maybe not in email. Or loud enough. -- Bart. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
Bart Schuller writes (Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status): http://ianmurdock.com/?p=274 This is some kind of insulting joke. Look at the www.dccalliance.org website: * `common, standards-based core for Debian-based Linux distributions' (including Debian, one might suppose?) * `we work closely with the Debian community in implementing common standards and enterprise features' (so you expect them to be on debian-policy?) * `around a common Debian core' (which is not actually Debian) * `Assemble a 100 percent Debian core' * Debian logo very prominent. Perhaps Debian should revoke their permission to use the Debian Open Use logo. Ian. PS. Nice of the body to tell us officially, rather than expect us to poll their personal website. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
On Monday 17 October 2005 13:22, Ian Jackson wrote: | PS: Don's message that I quote above was posted to debian-private but ... | The alternative, to paraphrase Don's words, seems silly. That sounds like you can't draw a straight line, Ian. What's wrong with Stick to what you agreed to. ? If a proprietary part of the 'Debian something' 's code has a remote exploit, will Debian sound less attractive ? So how about Anyone who knowingly exploits someone else's trademark, without bothering to ask them for permission first, is a thief. ? Can anyone afford to entrust their enterprise's computer security to the Common Thief Consortium ? I'm glad that you advocate a firmer approach, Ian. have fun ! Siward de Groot (home.wanadoo.nl/siward) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General linux question.
On Monday 17 October 2005 04.20, stephen horvath wrote: I do have a question that I have not received an answer. What is the real difference in what is referred to as Red Hat based or Debian based? As you've certainly noticed by now, the actual application programs (KDE, Gnome, The Gimp, OpenOffice.org etc.) are the same on both RedHat and Debian-based systems (and, for that matter, on Mandriva and Novell/SuSE, too - those are not really RedHat based anymore today.) The principal difference is in how software packages are distributed. On Windows, you had '.cab' files or self-extracting '.exe' files with (most often) an InstallShield based installer program (or similar.) On Debian based systems, you have '.deb' files, on RedHat/SuSE/Mandriva you have '.rpm' files. Between Red Hat, SuSE and Mandriva, while the package format is te same, the package names and the dependencies between the packages differ (ok, this is now becoming quite technical - as a user, you can just ignore that.) Another difference between the Linux distributions is the installer (I mean the system installer - what you see when you first boot from the distribution CD) - even within the 'Debian family' (Debian, Knoppix, Xandros, MEPIS, Ubuntu, ...) there are differencies. Also, the way to change system settings (set up Internet access, install additional programs, ...) once you have installed your system is different. I hope this helps to satisfy your curiosity. greetings Adrian -- Of course I know how to copy disks. Where's the xerox machine? pgpjCr9jaF7sa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: General linux question.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:18:34 +0200 Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 17 October 2005 04.20, stephen horvath wrote: I do have a question that I have not received an answer. What is the real difference in what is referred to as Red Hat based or Debian based? the actual application programs [..] are the same The principal difference is in how software packages are distributed. Another difference [..] is the installer Also, the way to change system settings [..] is different. An important difference not covered above is that Debian is driven by a community effort - Redhat is driven by a corporation with stake holders to worry about, with a geek community being only an add-on. In theory the packaging systems used in Debian (dpkg) and Redhat (rpm) is quite similarly capable, but in reality the quality of packages and their interdependencies differ alot between distributions. Debian is by design a very messy place were each of a thousand developers are granted very wide trust. The way Debian solve structural problems (like oops, these two libraries conflict with each other - we need to choose only one of them to use across lots of packages) are fundamentally different from a corporation that can force decisions onto the paid developers. This is partly what makes development of the Debian distribution so famously slow, but also what (IMHO) makes the final result so much higher quality: The actual geeks compete their pet approaches or find ways to live happily side by side - instead of a management decision possibly killing novel ideas too soon (or old stable solution too early). - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDU/9On7DbMsAkQLgRAsV0AJkBNBoYBENOi1HHTSnpk00JkbbnmQCfWHmP IVDE5urBzJYTK59y0T85MCw= =2b3B -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Internet, Translators and the Babel tower
Hi I recommend to you an explanatory and comparative experiment of translation in which can be appreciated on line the cumulative complexity in the use of translators in Internet. To see http://www.3dnauta.com The Roman walls of Lugo Past, present and future of a tecnólogica strength. In French, Spanish, English and German. Simultaneous translator experiment. It is a very fast URL, without baners nor publicity and with amplest graphical information on Art, Science, History, etc. To See also: The Invincible Armada, a very sad history, STORY BOARD 3D, in English, Spanish and French. For a short movie with previous historic documentation. If you like this, inoffensive, diverse, broad and with sportsmanship URL... Would do you to me a mention or link? I would like to collaborate. Sorry by English Warm greetings Ulises Sarry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DCCA name change and remaining issues
Just to clarify what the current status of my delegation to resolve the trademark issues surrounding the DCCA: The DCCA/DCC has changed their name to be a recursive acronym, thereby removing any mention of Debian's mark in their name, and resolving the primary trademark issue that I was delegated to deal with, and thus ending the term of my delegation. There are still a few remaining issues needing to be resolved in regards to the DCCA, which I am working on hashing out: 1) Use of debian logo on the website/in the DCCA logo 2) Announcement to clarify the relationship between the DCCA and Debian. #1 basically involves changing http://www.dccalliance.org/images/dccalliance.gif to no longer include the Debian logo. #2 is slightly more difficult; I had requested in the context of the negotiation that the DCCA make an press release clarifying what their name stood for (IE, the removal of Debian from the mark) and the relationship between the DCCA and Debian (IE, that they are two separate entities and the DCCA cannot speak for the project and vice versa, if necessary.) Unfortunatly, they have been unwilling to make such an announcement for marketing related reasons; that leaves it up to us if we so desire to exercise our powers under 4.1.5 to make such a statement. I'm of the opinion that such an announcement would be desirable (otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it in the first place) but I'd like to see someone else who feels similarly draft such an announcement before I try to start the process on my own. Finally, I'm glad that Ian and I were able to communicate and come to a solution that resolved the major problem at issue here without resorting to legal wrangling; Greg Pomerantz also was invaluable in making sure that I had not crossed into the trademark loonie bin. Don Armstrong -- A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'... -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Spi-trademark] Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Perhaps Debian should revoke their permission to use the Debian Open Use logo. Non-free though the Open Use Logo licence is, it has no revocation or termination clause (unlike the Official Use which they don't seem to be using?). You may be able to find a way to attack with the trademark, but hasn't debian done enough to make itself seem hostile to commercial development help yet? PS. Nice of the body to tell us officially, rather than expect us to poll their personal website. I was not aware that SPI's board members were delegated to decide the debian trademark. Maybe you mean it's nice of debian or the appropriate delegate to keep you informed? -- MJ Ray (slef), Lynn, England, to email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
