Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up
On 08/31/2017 11:32 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI
heads-up"):
On 08/31/2017 07:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
The vendor should apply for their own EANs. If Debian/SPI applies for
them it will provide a communication of validity to the vendor
("Official Debian Images").
+1 for Debian not allowing an external vendor to appear as the official
distributor (unless they actually are).
I'm not sure I follow everything you said there, but it sounds to me
like you are happy with my proposed letter. If I have misunderstood
then I'm afraid you'll have to clarify...
We are good.
Thanks,
JD
Regards,
Ian.
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *
Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI
heads-up"):
> On 08/31/2017 07:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
> > do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
>
> The vendor should apply for their own EANs. If Debian/SPI applies for
> them it will provide a communication of validity to the vendor
> ("Official Debian Images").
>
> +1 for Debian not allowing an external vendor to appear as the official
> distributor (unless they actually are).
I'm not sure I follow everything you said there, but it sounds to me
like you are happy with my proposed letter. If I have misunderstood
then I'm afraid you'll have to clarify...
Regards,
Ian.
Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up
On 08/31/2017 07:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Hi.
Summary:
Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
The vendor should apply for their own EANs. If Debian/SPI applies for
them it will provide a communication of validity to the vendor
("Official Debian Images").
+1 for Debian not allowing an external vendor to appear as the official
distributor (unless they actually are).
JD
Process:
We (Debian, me specifically) are about to ask Free Software
Conservancy for legal advice - specifically whether there is anything
wrong with this proposed letter.
If the advice is favourable, and subject to comments we get from SPI,
we will sign this letter on behalf of Debian and we would like the SPI
Secretary to sign it on behalf of SPI.
We will need approval from the SPI Board. I doubt there would be any
problem with this, but I thought I should let you know.
I will CC the Board on the request I make to our legal counsel and ask
them to send you a copy of the advice we receive.
Background:
Debian was recently asked by a vendor of Debian CDs to help them
out with an issue relating to EANs. An EAN is the (number
represented by a) barcode which is used to identify physical products
at the point of sale.
Some large online trading platforms prefer everything they sell to
have an EAN where possible. (Presumably this makes their database
management easier or something.) It appears that they particularly
don't want their clients to be selling without an EAN, items that do
have an EAN.
And they want (for some reason) to ensure that products sold without
EANs, which bear trademarks, are sold in that way only with the
consent of the trademark holder. I assume that this is part of their
efforts to try to ensure their clients do not breach trademarks.
After investigating the issues, we (Debian) don't think we want to
issue EANs (in part because Debian provides data files, not physical
embodiments, which probably should not have EANs).
I drafted the letter you find below.
I have now been delegated by the Debian Project Leader to take care of
this issue.
Thanks for your attention.
Regards,
Ian.
=== draft letter ===
RE DEBIAN - EUROPEAN ARTICLE NUMBER (EAN)
To Whom It May Concern
The Debian Project ("Debian") and Software In The Public Interest
Inc ("SPI") wish to make known that:
1. Debian, through its Trusted Organisations including SPI, owns and
controls the trademark "Debian" in various jurisdictions.
2. Debian does not provide European Article Numbers (EANs). Nor do
any of Debian's associated organisations do so on Debian's behalf.
3. Debian and SPI give public permission for products embodying
Debian's software and documentation to be sold, according to the
Debian Trademark Policy (which can be found at
https://www.debian.org/trademark). That policy does not make any
requirement about EANs. Therefore (provided the the policy is adhered
to) we have no objection to Debian branded products being sold without
EANs.
4. Debian do not anticpate this situation changing in the next 2
years. Specifically, we do not expect to be issuing EANs within the
next 2 years.
5. Please therefore allow vendors of Debian merchandise to trade,
notwithstanding any lack of EANs for those products.
6. This is without predjudice, of course, to our right to enforce our
trademarks against anyone found violating our trademark policy. We
are simply saying that lack of an EAN is, in itself, completely fine.
Signed
for the Debian Project for Software in the Public Intere
=== email from trading platform support desk to a Debian vendor ===
From: Support Vendeur
To:***
Subject: RE:[CASE ] Demande de courrier
Dear Seller,
Thank you for contacting ***. My name is and it has been a
delight to talk with you on the phone. Once again, thank you for
taking the time to answer me. It is my pleasure to assist you with
your query related with your EAM exemption application.
As regards as your case, I can see that you would like to products from
the brand Debian without having to buy EAN codes.
Please note that in order to do that, as you are not the manufacturer of
the concerned products, you need to apply for an EAN exemption approval.
In order to have your application processed, the fields below should be
populated in the form.
Estimated annual revenue
Condition of your product
Company website
Company description
Brand to be exempted and seller connection to the brand
How do you upload your listings
Number of products needing UPC or EAN exemptions
Justification for UPC or EAN exemptions
Name
Email
Phone
Company name
You also need to prove a letter coming from your manufacturer that
states those
Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI
heads-up"):
> I'm not sure whether this is splitting hairs, but wouldn't issuing a
> letter stating those 2 years make any similar request in the near
> future that demands a 2 years span, require reissuing a new letter?
> Perhaps it should be 3 or 4 years instead? One possible problem is that
> this means we cannot change our minds for a "long" time if need be, but
> I think there is indeed consensus that we'd not want to do that. But of
> course with these things you never know what will happen in 1 year! :)
This is a valid point, but I was imagining we would reissue this
letter as needed. In practice an old letter which is still on our
website is likely to be accepted by the relying parties, I would have
thought.
Ian.
Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up
Hi! On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 15:19:18 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Summary: > > Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we > do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below. > === draft letter === […] >4. Debian do not anticpate this situation changing in the next 2 >years. Specifically, we do not expect to be issuing EANs within the >next 2 years. […] > === email from trading platform support desk to a Debian vendor === > >From: Support Vendeur >To:*** >Subject: RE:[CASE ] Demande de courrier […] >You also need to prove a letter coming from your manufacturer that >states those facts: […] >-your manufacturer is not going to buy any EAN code during the 2 next >years. […] I'm not sure whether this is splitting hairs, but wouldn't issuing a letter stating those 2 years make any similar request in the near future that demands a 2 years span, require reissuing a new letter? Perhaps it should be 3 or 4 years instead? One possible problem is that this means we cannot change our minds for a "long" time if need be, but I think there is indeed consensus that we'd not want to do that. But of course with these things you never know what will happen in 1 year! :) Thanks, Guillem
Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up
Hi.
Summary:
Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
Process:
We (Debian, me specifically) are about to ask Free Software
Conservancy for legal advice - specifically whether there is anything
wrong with this proposed letter.
If the advice is favourable, and subject to comments we get from SPI,
we will sign this letter on behalf of Debian and we would like the SPI
Secretary to sign it on behalf of SPI.
We will need approval from the SPI Board. I doubt there would be any
problem with this, but I thought I should let you know.
I will CC the Board on the request I make to our legal counsel and ask
them to send you a copy of the advice we receive.
Background:
Debian was recently asked by a vendor of Debian CDs to help them
out with an issue relating to EANs. An EAN is the (number
represented by a) barcode which is used to identify physical products
at the point of sale.
Some large online trading platforms prefer everything they sell to
have an EAN where possible. (Presumably this makes their database
management easier or something.) It appears that they particularly
don't want their clients to be selling without an EAN, items that do
have an EAN.
And they want (for some reason) to ensure that products sold without
EANs, which bear trademarks, are sold in that way only with the
consent of the trademark holder. I assume that this is part of their
efforts to try to ensure their clients do not breach trademarks.
After investigating the issues, we (Debian) don't think we want to
issue EANs (in part because Debian provides data files, not physical
embodiments, which probably should not have EANs).
I drafted the letter you find below.
I have now been delegated by the Debian Project Leader to take care of
this issue.
Thanks for your attention.
Regards,
Ian.
=== draft letter ===
RE DEBIAN - EUROPEAN ARTICLE NUMBER (EAN)
To Whom It May Concern
The Debian Project ("Debian") and Software In The Public Interest
Inc ("SPI") wish to make known that:
1. Debian, through its Trusted Organisations including SPI, owns and
controls the trademark "Debian" in various jurisdictions.
2. Debian does not provide European Article Numbers (EANs). Nor do
any of Debian's associated organisations do so on Debian's behalf.
3. Debian and SPI give public permission for products embodying
Debian's software and documentation to be sold, according to the
Debian Trademark Policy (which can be found at
https://www.debian.org/trademark). That policy does not make any
requirement about EANs. Therefore (provided the the policy is adhered
to) we have no objection to Debian branded products being sold without
EANs.
4. Debian do not anticpate this situation changing in the next 2
years. Specifically, we do not expect to be issuing EANs within the
next 2 years.
5. Please therefore allow vendors of Debian merchandise to trade,
notwithstanding any lack of EANs for those products.
6. This is without predjudice, of course, to our right to enforce our
trademarks against anyone found violating our trademark policy. We
are simply saying that lack of an EAN is, in itself, completely fine.
Signed
for the Debian Project for Software in the Public Intere
=== email from trading platform support desk to a Debian vendor ===
From: Support Vendeur
To:***
Subject: RE:[CASE ] Demande de courrier
Dear Seller,
Thank you for contacting ***. My name is and it has been a
delight to talk with you on the phone. Once again, thank you for
taking the time to answer me. It is my pleasure to assist you with
your query related with your EAM exemption application.
As regards as your case, I can see that you would like to products from
the brand Debian without having to buy EAN codes.
Please note that in order to do that, as you are not the manufacturer of
the concerned products, you need to apply for an EAN exemption approval.
In order to have your application processed, the fields below should be
populated in the form.
Estimated annual revenue
Condition of your product
Company website
Company description
Brand to be exempted and seller connection to the brand
How do you upload your listings
Number of products needing UPC or EAN exemptions
Justification for UPC or EAN exemptions
Name
Email
Phone
Company name
You also need to prove a letter coming from your manufacturer that
states those facts:
-your manufacturer doesn't provide you any EAN codes.
-your manufacturer allows you to send his products without any EAN
codes.
-your manufacturer is not going to buy any EAN code during the 2 next
years.
Incomplete applications will not be processed. EAN or UPC exemptions
cannot be granted for single ASINs sold in product bundles or in bulk.
With the
