Re: Bug#1043539: project: Forwarding of @debian.org mails to gmail broken
Greetings, * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) wrote: > Cord Beermann writes: > > > As listmaster i can confirm that it is a big problem to deliver Mails to > > gmail/outlook/yahoo. Yahoo Subscribers are mostly gone by now because > > they bounced a lot, for gmail it is so much that we just ignore bounces > > because of those rules. > > Yes, I gave up for the mailing lists I run and just rewrite the From > address to be the address of the list and move the actual sender to > Reply-To, and I see other technical mailing lists like the glibc lists > have started doing this as well (using the built-in Mailman feature, which > can optionally do this only if the sender domain has SPF/DMARC records). The answer that we (PostgreSQL folks, at least) went with was to stop breaking DKIM because that's just a bad approach to take these days with mailing lists. If you're curious about what PostgreSQL and now SPI are using for our lists, it's called pgLister and is here: https://gitlab.com/pglister/pglister Others have hacked up mailman to make it stop breaking DKIM too (though it's pretty grotty how they did it, I'll admit). Yes, yes, I know that means a bunch of mailman features aren't available. We've managed to survive even without them. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1043539: project: Forwarding of @debian.org mails to gmail broken
Greetings, * Cord Beermann (c...@debian.org) wrote: > As listmaster i can confirm that it is a big problem to deliver Mails to > gmail/outlook/yahoo. Yahoo Subscribers are mostly gone by now because they > bounced a lot, for gmail it is so much that we just ignore bounces because of > those rules. As a maintainer or some pretty big lists ... we don't have *that* much trouble delivering to gmail, or others for that matter. > | helgefjell.de descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:142.132.201.35 mx ~all" > > so you flagged your mail has to come from that IP (or the MX) and from other > sources it should be considered suspicious. ... but if it's DKIM signed, then it'll generally get delivered properly. > SRS/ARC and so on are just dirty patches that try to fix things that were > broken before, but they will break even more things like Mail signing. ARC doesn't break DKIM signatures (unless someone's got a very broken DKIM setup which over-signs ARC headers ... but if so, then that's on them). Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1043539: project: Forwarding of @debian.org mails to gmail broken
Greetings, * Mattia Rizzolo (mat...@debian.org) wrote: > Alternatively, I wonder if ARC nowadays is respected enough (and if > Google cares about it)... I personally don't have any system with ARC > under my care. Sadly, no, they don't seem to care one bit about ARC, except possibly if it's their own ARC sigs. If someone has some idea how to get them to care about ARC, I'd love to hear about it, as I have folks on the one hand who view DKIM/DMARC as too painful to set up but then they end up with bounces from gmail due to my forwarding of messages through my server (which are being ARC-signed by it and pass on that the SPF check was successful when they arrived to my server)... I'd encourage everyone running their own email servers to please get DKIM/DMARC/ARC/SPF set up. Yeah, it's annoying, but it's not actually all *that* bad to do. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian
Greetings, * to...@tuxteam.de (to...@tuxteam.de) wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:18:46AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:06 AM wrote: > > > > > > To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / > > > humorous, > > > even though his actions are far from humorous. > > > > Was this message moderated? This author should be banned. May Hitler's > > name be obliterated. All messages to the list are moderated. > I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're doing > now... no? Agreed. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian
Greetings, * Ihor Antonov (ihor@antonovs.family) wrote: > On Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:15:23 PM PDT Russ Allbery wrote: > > Ihor Antonov writes: > > > On Sunday, April 12, 2020 11:51:27 AM PDT Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> The forum to which you sent this message is already moderated and has > > >> been for months. I suspect you didn't even notice. > > > > > > So how then you need more moderation possibilities with Discourse? > > Well, now I notice, thank you very much. > > Apr 12 21:43:38 mail.antonovs.family smtpd[46138]: bcb7c45eb6e6a5bf mta > delivery evpid=95394d1f34ea1dd5 from= to= proj...@lists.debian.org> rcpt=<-> source="10.193.1.100" relay="82.195.75.100 > (bendel.debian.org)" delay=6s result="Ok" stat="250 > > > Apr 12 21:43:48 mail.antonovs.family smtpd[46138]: bcb7c45eb6e6a5bf mta > disconnected reason=quit messages=1 > > 2 hours later it is still not in the list > As far as I can tell my message was dropped after MTA accepted it. No, just held up in moderation due to, I believe, a bit of confusion about how moderation is being done now that we have a dedicated list alias. I *think* the one you mentioned has now been released and is now included- if not, please let me know. If you see any others not included, please also feel free to speak up, I'm fairly confident that any which were missed from moderation were not done so intentionally. > So much for freedom, huh? I don't think that's terribly constructive. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: distributed moderation of mailinglist
* Geert Stappers (stapp...@stappers.nl) wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 08:55:18AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > * Holger Wansing (hwans...@mailbox.org) wrote: > > > Geert Stappers wrote: > > > > Posting of subscriber with establish repuation > > > > go through without a delay. It skips "review queue" > > > > Sure. > > > > > > New subcribers will recieve postings. Their first > > > > posting gets a delay of N minutes. > > > > > > > > The delay has a time-out. If no-one approved a posting > > > > from the review queue, the posting goes through the ML. > > > > Such "time-out-expired posting" tells that the pool of > > > > moderators is too small. > > > > Interesting idea.. > > > > > > Please share your idea of such mailinglist features. > > > > > > The delay has to be something like 24h, not "N minutes". > > > Otherwise this is a too high burden for the moderators. > > > > Yeah, that doesn't strike me as a great approach either. > > :-) > > When I wrote 'N minutes', I was thinking "configuration item > in the manual page". Yes, delays will typically be > a multiple of 60 minutes. Yeah, these things often need configuration. :) > > The way this is handled in pglister (which is what the PostgreSQL.Org > > mailing lists use, and we throw quite a bit of mail around) > > I found https://gitlab.com/pglister/pglister Yup, that's it, and it's actively being used and developed. > > is that non-subscribers and/or non-whitelisted folks do go to > > moderation, but we have a number of moderators and we more-or-less > > randomly pick the first moderator to email, if the mail isn't moderated > > after 5 minutes or so, we randomly pick a different moderator to email, > > and so on. > > Nice algoritme, nice load-balancer. Thanks. > > We don't have any "automatically let the email through" option today, > > and we're pretty successfully able to moderate a lot of mail, let a > > lot of mail through, > > I do read "Many volunteers on guarding duty". > Yes, that is truely distributed moderation. More-or-less. > > and have very very little spam get through (the little it does > > happen is almost always due to a mistake by a moderator, which does > > happen from time to time, of course). > > Yes, human touch preferred. Yup. Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: distributed moderation of mailinglist
Greetings, * Holger Wansing (hwans...@mailbox.org) wrote: > Geert Stappers wrote: > > Posting of subscriber with establish repuation > > go through without a delay. It skips "review queue" Sure. > > New subcribers will recieve postings. Their first > > posting gets a delay of N minutes. > > > > The delay has a time-out. If no-one approved a posting > > from the review queue, the posting goes through the ML. > > Such "time-out-expired posting" tells that the pool of > > moderators is too small. Interesting idea.. > > Please share your idea of such mailinglist features. > > The delay has to be something like 24h, not "N minutes". > Otherwise this is a too high burden for the moderators. Yeah, that doesn't strike me as a great approach either. The way this is handled in pglister (which is what the PostgreSQL.Org mailing lists use, and we throw quite a bit of mail around) is that non-subscribers and/or non-whitelisted folks do go to moderation, but we have a number of moderators and we more-or-less randomly pick the first moderator to email, if the mail isn't moderated after 5 minutes or so, we randomly pick a different moderator to email, and so on. We don't have any "automatically let the email through" option today, and we're pretty successfully able to moderate a lot of mail, let a lot of mail through, and have very very little spam get through (the little it does happen is almost always due to a mistake by a moderator, which does happen from time to time, of course). Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
* Mason Loring Bliss (ma...@blisses.org) wrote: It just strikes me that we can do better, and I'd like to see us do so. I value Debian as the most relevant vehicle for distributing and promoting free software in existence by a very wide margin. The community already values many important things and acts to do the right thing in most cases. One place where we fall down is in our application of force. We used to simply allow this kind of language, which resulted in numerous cases of individuals being uncomfortable working with the Debian community and either refusing to participate on the lists or leaving the project entirely, and a reputation was established that Debian was not a friendly or open community. We *are* doing better, from where I sit. It's unfortunate that someone was surprised that we're actually serious about these policies- but that's hardly justification to not have those policies or to relax them. PS: I saw we here, but I have no formal relationship with the project. I speak as an interested long-time Debian user and free software advocate. We certainly appreciate your interest in this topic and concrete suggestions for changes are welcome from any party, though you will need to find DDs who agree to put forward a GR to have the policy changed. If the issue is that the individual banned would like to participate again on the lists then I believe there is a process which can be followed to reinstate them. Having not been in that situation, I'm not aware of what it is, but I'd suggest the individual follow up with listmaster@ for further information. I do expect it would involve, in part, agreeing to following the CoC and not using inappropriate language. If that's not acceptable then I don't know that there's much else to discuss at this point in time. My 2c as a random (not terribly involved :/) DD. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Facilitators
MJR, * MJ Ray (m...@phonecoop.coop) wrote: I wrote many years ago that I support this concept for lists in particular http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/debian.html#listmoderators but I think it could be applied to many other situations too. Thanks for the link! That looks very similar to what I'm going after here, though takes it farther than I've proposed here so far.. Are there particular aspects which would be useful to discuss here? In particular, developing a code of conduct/community guideline that encourages use of a facilitator to resolve conflicts, with a goal to avoid needing to escalate to anything beyond that. One of the issues that came up at DebConf, and is discussed in your link above, is about list moderators and preventing individuals from posting. In the end, I'm afraid that may be necessary, but feel it should be a last resort. What I think would be great would be to have individuals appreciate and respect that a moderator / intermediary / facilitator has been asked to step in and just back off on-list and wait for that to happen (something which I think would typically happen off-list, otherwise it'll likely get interrupted and people will feel they aren't able to get their voice heard). Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Facilitators
Holger, * Holger Levsen (hol...@layer-acht.org) wrote: I like the idea and I think that having this role somewhat formalised will help achieving it goals. Thanks! Do you have some specific thoughts on what you think it needs to be formalised..? Thanks again, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
* Sune Vuorela (nos...@vuorela.dk) wrote: I'm hoping that we can convince the release team to change their mind. I doubt you can, and I hope you don't. It could have been announced better, but in general I think it's a good thing for Debian. Please get over how it was announced. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
* Sandro Tosi (mo...@debian.org) wrote: From what I understand because the long freeze period we had last time is making problems all around for users (of unstable/testing) and developers as well as the release itself. This is a fact (lenny release was too long) but doesn't address how a fixed freeze start would generate a shorter freeze period. Having a fixed freeze start helps people plan, of course. Having a release date goal helps make it happen. Just to toss out another example, PostgreSQL has been trying to get to a time-based release system for a while. It's getting pretty close now, but these things take time and there will be challenges ahead. Overall, I think this is a good thing for Debian. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need of non-germany-tree in Debian?
* Nico Golde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Looks like you don't understand the law. There is no list with tools which met the criteria. But the criteria is that the tool enables or helps you to get access to private data which matches nmap no matter if you use it for personal network security or not. Yeah, ftp helps you do that too. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: message from Sven Luther
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm aware that Sven is banned, so if someone thinks I should not forward it, please say it now. If nobody objects after a reasonable period of time, I will send it. I don't think you should forward it. Then again, if someone objects to it, just let me know and I won't send it. I object. We've wasted enough time with this already. If it's actually *important* (which I strongly doubt) and has some relevance (isn't about Sven or the ban or things which are done and settled) then (if you're willing to) recast it in your own words, as your own statement, and maybe mention that you heard about it from Sven or whatever. If you're not willing to do that then I seriously doubt it passed either of the other tests mentioned. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: message from Sven Luther
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: As others have said, it is not fair to put on me the extra burden of recasting the message in my own words. Plus, I don't think it does really archieve anything. Then don't post it, and please stop this thread (by not replying further). Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Just leave Debian, like that, and who will give me back all those years and uncountable hours i have sacrificed to debian ? Or the actual money and time and equipement i have given to debian ? Funny thing about volunteers.. They tend to give their time willingly without getting things in return. That's kind of the point. If you're not willing to volunteer, then don't. Doing volunteer work and then expecting to be paid for it doesn't exactly fly too well with the people organizing the work, especially when they're volunteers themselves. For that matter, it comes across pretty poorly to damn near everyone I know. Enjoy, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. You quite obviously haven't read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I wrote (among other important things), it would be fairly straightforward for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages. I explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom. Wow, is this ever silly. Of course I read it and I appreciate your position that it's more work than not doing anything different from what you're doing now but I simply disagree about it and it seems like a pretty straight-forward solution to implement. I also understand that not all Debian derivatives are changing the Maintainer field and that Debian's not specifically chastising them for it. There are reasons for each though. Other Debian derivatives aren't (or at least, don't seem) as popular so it's less of an issue; other derivatives don't come across as pulling resources away from Debian (which Ubuntu seems to be doing, reality aside, that's the perception); other derivatives didn't ask and sometimes that's just the burden you have to bear when you're actively trying to do the right thing; other derivatives (some portion of them anyway, I expect) don't recompile packages (which makes leaving the Maintainer field alone somewhat less of an offense to some). If you're going to attack me, please do it on the basis of what I've actually said. Honestly, I expected better from you, give that you've acted like a human being toward me on IRC on several occasions in the past. Funny, I didn't think I was attacking you at all. Rereading what you quoted above I really don't see how that's an attack and I'm afraid perhaps you've gotten a little sensitive on this. I'm happy enough to excuse that as I'm sure you've gotten a fair number of poor reactions from others. Looking through my other emails on the subject it seems perhaps unkind of me to say you're ignoring the answer but, well, that's how it's coming across. :/ Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other derivative, it's a significant operation on its own. Its commercial backer is apparently able to pay quite a few Debian developers, several of them among the core team. There is a significant user base, and so on. Like it or not, Ubuntu is a bit special. I can't accept this; if there is no principle here which should be applied consistently, then it's entirely unfair to attack Ubuntu. Certainly, there are things about Ubuntu which are unique, but none of them change the issues at hand. Personally I think the principle *should* be applied consistently but as a volunteer and with generally not much time I'm not going to hunt down every Debian derivative out there, see what they do and complain at them if they're not doing it the right way. I doubt it'd have any effect in the majority of the cases anyway. Ubuntu, by trying to do the right thing (which many of us appreciate) and by asking the question of what *should* be done has put themselves in a position where if they don't do what 'should' be done, regardless of what others do, they're going to seem like bad guys. Also, I'm afraid, given Ubuntu's popularity and the impression (unfounded or not) that Ubuntu is taking resources away from Debian is going to mean Ubuntu will be held to a higher standard than other derivatives. I think many of us would like to see Ubuntu be the best derivative and always do the right thing and that's why there's more pressure on Ubuntu than other derivatives. Seriously, it's entirely unreasonable to single out Ubuntu on this issue. Perhaps so, but then Ubuntu's just another derivative and not the derivative many of us would like to see it be, and I expect the derivative that Ubuntu itself would like to be from a PR standpoint. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I think this explains my preference for the package maintainer listed in Debian-derivative distributions to be changed even for otherwise unmodified source packages. To avoid forking source packages, maybe Ubuntu could cause the maintainer field to be changed in the binary packages by small modifications to the build tools, as suggested elsewhere in this thread. To try to be a little clearer- this was my intent also. The source tarball can remain untouched, just change the Maintainer field in the binary deb. Ubuntu redistributing unmodified source tarballs (which obviously have the Maintainer field unchanged) isn't a problem, imv. It'd be nice if it's made clear that it's an unmodified Debian source tarball/diff/etc but not a big deal, really. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the same Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please individuals with conflicting opinions. Maybe I missed something, but has someone actually said they'd be unhappy if the Maintainer: field was an appropriate Ubuntu person? Some might be alright with leaving Maintainer alone if the package hasn't been changed, some might be alright with leaving it the same even if the package has been changed and some might always want it changed, I don't expect you'll get a concensus on that. I'd be suprised if someone was actually unhappy with the Maintainer field changing though. Of course, don't submit a patch back to Debian which includes changing the Maintainer field. * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner I don't see how this would help. If we were to institute a policy (or more likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on the process. What did you have in mind here? It's similar to my comment above- set the maintainer to an appropriate Ubuntu person, which would naturally be the Ubuntu package maintainer, who might also be the Debian package maintainer. Really, though, this isn't a Debian concern or problem- if the Ubuntu developers are complaining about an automated Maintainer-changing script then that's an issue Ubuntu needs to deal with and figure a way around, or just ignore. It's certainly not an excuse to leave the Maintainer field alone. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. As I've pointed out before, this also just plain isn't Debian's problem. You keep asking for Debian to tell you what 'should' be in the Maintainer field but then you're ignoring the answer because you think it's hard. It's pretty clear what 'Debian' thinks *should* be in the field, or at least what most people would agree with; sorry that it's not the simple answer you want but you asked. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It seems to me they are selling t-shirts and whatever and the result of that money serves to buy more t-shirts and stuff, is donated to debian as UK-based money when asked by the DPL/SPI/whoever, and occasionally serves to pay beer for the anual barbeque or whatever. This doesn't strike me as much different than loads of other inon-profit associations (maybe thisis a frenchisism though ?) do in all legallity, and i see nothing there which really involves trademark or our attitude with regard commercial distributions. I do believe there are non-profits out there which do exactly this. This issue is about doing it using Debian's name (the trademark issue) and attempting to appear as part of Debian (the non-commercial issue). If DUS/Debian-UK is really the UK branch of Debian then it needs to act as Debian does and be non-commercial. If it's not the UK branch of Debian then it shouldn't be calling itself Debian-UK and shouldn't be accepting donations and holding money on behalf of Debian. What makes it even worse is that on debian.org websites we claim to not sell products yet at the *Debian* booth at whichever UK expos DUS goes to we *are* selling products. It seems pretty likely that the sponsored booth is in Debian's name, either explicitly or as Debian-UK with the assumption that Debian-UK is the UK branch of Debian. .From my overview of this discussion, it is just a petty person dispute between the in people and the out ones, and some critiziscm at the fact that debian-uk was setup slopily and in a way which may make random UK based DD liable (altough i guess any court would take the reasonable approach over the opt-out thingy, and not make those co-opted members liable, but IANAL). I believe there is some animosity due to the opt-out issue but that's not what I'm focused on since it's not terribly interesting. There are some important issues here regarding Debian's non-commercial stance and use of its name in other countries. So, go solv your internal and interpersonal affairs between yourselves, or bring some more real problems here that warrant this long flamewar :) It might help to point out that I'm not in the UK.. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use the mark. Why should this selling association, which ignores good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's development association gets referred for negotiations? Because, quite simply, they are not a business, at least in the sense that was meant at the above. I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial would be considered a business to us. I mean, take LinuxTag for example, there where guys there at the debian booth selling t-shirts and stuff, don't know the detail, but nobody bashed them for doing business in debian name, and i believe as long as the money is not given out to share-holders, but is for debian (either as plain donation, or expensed for debian related stuff, like stock renewal and the ocassional yearly party), then everything is fine and you are just silly in claiming the contrary. Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. I'd brought this issue up before (on d-d I believe) and got shot down by a number of people for proposing that we try to supplement our cash reserves by selling things and perhaps some day be able to pay for our own hosting, etc. And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? Or is it only restricted to software products ? That's an interesting question and not really very well phrased and so is kind of difficult to answer. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #2 and #5 work fine together also but shouldn't be done under something claiming close ties to Debian. Right, and there's some amount of contention on this point, which I think is the main issue that we should be considering. I think part of the problem is that commercial has connotations of Red Hat like organisation, which gives an immediate no reaction. For this part it's a misunderstanding of what commercial means. I tried to work past this in the thread on d-d where I brought up the possibility of Debian being a commercial organization and it was made quite clear to me (by Manoj, if memory serves, sorry if I'm wrong) that there was no such misunderstanding about the term. It was understood that commercial != for-profit and that it was being commercial at all which was the problem. It's somewhat worth pointing out that Mark has something of a reputation [...] Not relevant and so not worth commenting on. Honestly, I wish these constant attempts to assign blame for this situation would just stop. I'm not trying to blame anyone. Personally, I think Debian/SPI should be selling things but I respect that the apparent majority disagrees with me on that. Certainly if Debian/SPI isn't going to do it then Debian/SPI in other countries shouldn't either. That's what Debian-UK comes across to me as- the UK branch of Debian. It seems you'd like for it to be percieved that way as well. It's not if it's selling things. Simply using the argument Debian's legal entity doesn't sell things, therefore no closely associated entity should sell things either isn't very convincing - it's more worthwhile to look at /why/ SPI doesn't engage in any commercial activities. The usual arguments seem to be: It's worthwhile to attempt to convince Debian at large to become a commercial entity. This didn't seem terribly likely to happen when I brought it up last but perhaps it's time for another go at it. I do still feel that whichever way Debian decides should be understood, accepted, and followed for Debian branches in other countries. I also feel that a name like 'Debian UK' should be reserved, by trademark law if necessary, for such Debian branches who then have to report directly to the DPL, etc. I also feel that things like booths which are sponsored by others for Debian should follow the decision. To some extent I don't think SPI really enters into this too much. If Debian wanted to go commercial but SPI didn't then Debian could find another organization similar to SPI but was commercial. If it's not legally possible to have a commercial non-profit (I don't believe that's the case...) then that might be a problem. In the end I think that if Debian decided to go commercial that SPI would follow. a) It impairs donations (we've seen no sign at all of this happening in the UK) I've certainly heard concerns that the policy of some universities where we have hosting/mirrors is that such donations must be to a non-commercial entity. It's possible other donations of hardware and hosting from businesses would also have this issue. I don't believe the imperical evidence you've seen outlines very well the implications of Debian officially deciding to be a commercial entity. It seems very likely to me that most places which donate hosting and hardware view Debian as a non-commercial entity (based on what we claim on our website and what the DDs they communicate with quite possibly believe). In order to judge the impact of changing to a commercial organization I believe we'd need to contact these donars and get their reaction to this change. It's possible they wouldn't care but I don't believe we can draw that conclusion from what Debian-UK has seen at expos. b) It impairs competition (the leading Linux CD manufacturers in the UK supply us with the CDs that get sold, and certainly don't seem to be complaining) Certainly it's likely to impair competition. We are benefitted by being able to claim that it's Debian selling the products, and also that all proceeds will go back to Debian. It's certainly possible that CD manufacturers don't care but I don't believe that's an indication that it doesn't impair competition. Now, personally, I don't particularly mind if it impairs competition... I believe that in the end if we're able to sustain Debian, infrastructure at least, from the donations and commercial sales that it'd be a good thing for Debian. I certainly feel we should continue to be a non-profit though and continue to work in the public interest. c) It's Just Wrong (which is a bit difficult to argue against) These are good arguments for why Debian should be commercial. That doesn't mean that Debian has decided to be commercial and while we continue to advertise that we're non-commercial entities which are closely tied to Debian and use the Debian mark should also be non
Re: Debian UK
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 14:02]: I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial would be considered a business to us. Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here (Germany) a non-commercial institution can do business, as long as the business helps in reaching the institution's goals. And selling Debian T-Shirts falls into that aspect IMHO. (Business because it doesn't really always fall within the business laws.) Perhaps there's a language misunderstanding here. Commercial *means* selling things, at least where I'm from. What you're referring to seems to be what I'd understand as a non-profit. These are two distinct things. IANAL but I do believe that in the US a non-profit is similar to what you call a 'non-commercial institution' in that it can sell things provided it helps in reaching the goals and therefore is in the public interest. Either way, however, we do claim to not sell products. I hope there's no misunderstanding on what that means. To me, selling t-shirts would fall under selling products, and therefore would be commercial activity, though not necessairly for-profit. Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts and other stuff. Selling things is exactly what being a commercial entity means. :( Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:03:03AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial would be considered a business to us. Oh come on, do you have an idea of the volume involved ? And as far as i know, debian is a software project, not a tshirt-and-mug-and-whatnot selling one. Being commercial or not isn't dependent upon how much is sold. If you feel that the majority of Debian would be okay with some volume limitation of how much it sells then that might be something to follow-up on but I don't believe organizations which donate to us have such limitations in their policies regarding commercial entities they want to donate to... Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. I'd brought this issue up before (on d-d I believe) and got shot down by a number of people for proposing that we try to supplement our cash reserves by selling things and perhaps some day be able to pay for our own hosting, etc. So ? Jumping in it this whole mess instead of doing a proper proposal will hardly bring you a more serious hearing from most here (well, at least not from me). I'm not the one who's already activitely selling products... I'm not really here to advocate my position that Debian should be commercial, my original concern was that Debian should decide one way or the other and then Debian and close entities should follow that decision, which is not being done. I brought up that I feel Debian should be a commercial entity more to point out that I'm not against the idea but about going against what I felt was the majority and the existing policy. And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? Or is it only restricted to software products ? That's an interesting question and not really very well phrased and so is kind of difficult to answer. That is bullshit, and you perfectly know it. Anyone with the less knowledge about trademark know that they are not all encompassing, but that you have to declare field of endeavour or whatever it is called. In france if you delclare a trademark you get to fill for 3-4 fields for the same price for example. No, trademarks aren't all encompassing. There's also copyright law which governs the logo. There's also the issue that you're not selling a type of t-shirt which you've decided to trademark and call 'Debian'. There's also the issue that it's being sold at the Debian booth, etc. It's not so simple as you're trying to make it out to be, unfortunately. I guess that the debian trademark covers software and other computer related product, but does it covers drinks, carpentry, toys for children, vestimentary stuff, kitchen equipements and so on ? (well, not quite sure about the categories, but software and tshirt definitvely don't fall in the same category). No, they don't, but that's not what's at issue here and claiming it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue... Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:52:40AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: What makes it even worse is that on debian.org websites we claim to not sell products yet at the *Debian* booth at whichever UK expos DUS goes to we *are* selling products. It seems pretty likely that the sponsored booth is in Debian's name, either explicitly or as Debian-UK with the assumption that Debian-UK is the UK branch of Debian. I saw products being sold at LinuxTag's debian booth, and saw no major problem with that. Great, then perhaps you'd support a move for Debian to become a commercial entity. I suspect you're in the minority but I'd be happy to be wrong. I believe there is some animosity due to the opt-out issue but that's not what I'm focused on since it's not terribly interesting. There are some important issues here regarding Debian's non-commercial stance and use of its name in other countries. Come on, be serious, selling a few tshirts and stuff during a couple yearly expos and having the benefit go to debian is hardly what anyone serious minded mentions as commercial when speaking about debian. I'm being completely serious and I certainly consider selling products to be commercial activity. The problem would appear if there was a large volume being made, if the profit didn't go exclusively to debian, and such. I don't believe being commercial has some kind of volume requirement. It might help to point out that I'm not in the UK.. He, thanks, i didn't know that. Anyway, if you are serious about getting this stuff cleared out, make a policy proposal, but please stop this name calling non-sense. See, the issue is that I understood that there was already a policy of being non-commercial. It would seem our website and at least some other DDs would agree with that understanding. I don't mind a proposal to change that policy but I don't feel that excuses entities in other countries from having to follow the current policy. If the proposal is good, it will either be adopted, or we can vote on this, but i guess this would further ridiculie us in the face of the world than this thread already does. I think we'd have to vote on it, personally.. Perhaps not though. I do think we should do some research into what our current donars would think of such a change in policy though. Either way I think it's certainly a fair question to ask of ourselves and don't feel asking it would somehow be of detriment to Debian. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:47:24AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: Perhaps there's a language misunderstanding here. Commercial *means* selling things, at least where I'm from. What you're referring to seems to be what I'd understand as a non-profit. These are two distinct things. IANAL but I do believe that in the US a non-profit is similar to what you call a 'non-commercial institution' in that it can sell things provided it helps in reaching the goals and therefore is in the public interest. Nope, restricting your world view in warped US-interpretation. Funny, I thought it was a warped English-interpretation of the English language. dict seems to agree with my interpretation. :/ Let's say your paroquial association or housewife get-together association, start to sell house-made cakes in order to finance the repainting or fixing of the roof of their church or school or whatever. Or school children raising money for an excursion or whatever. This, independent of the law involved, is by any common sense applied to it no business or commerce, and is quite similar to what is going on at shows and events, when there are t-shirts being sold at the debian booth. Honestly, you're the first one to bring up that there's some limitation on volume regarding being commercial or non-commercial. This still doesn't deal with the issue that we claim to not sell products on our webpage. Do you happen to know what the volume is before you become a commercial entity? I have some serious difficulty directly equating non-commercial and non-profit. Perhaps that's just the US laws I'm vauguely familiar with influencing me. Either way though I'd like to know at what point would you consider Debian a commercial entity? That the money is used to pay the fee for the booth, have a nice big after-event party, or whatnot, or sponsors travel of debian developpers to events, that is all fine, and nothing to be ashamed about, and in no case is this a business or commercial venture. So, who's going to update the webpage to reflect this and exactly what is it going to say? Either way, however, we do claim to not sell products. I hope there's no misunderstanding on what that means. To me, selling t-shirts would fall under selling products, and therefore would be commercial activity, though not necessairly for-profit. Nope, if you are really from the US, then your view on this is limited by the way you think there, and if not, no idea if you ever participated in associative life. Uhh... http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/info Debian does not sell any products. I don't *think* that my being in the US is somehow making me read that differently than the rest of the world, but hey, if you see something different on that page, please let me know! Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts and other stuff. Selling things is exactly what being a commercial entity means. :( Bullshit. Please educate yourself. Uh-huh. Friendly, So kind. :) Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe there is some animosity due to the opt-out issue but that's not what I'm focused on since it's not terribly interesting. [...] No, not interesting, until something you disagree with is done in your name without consent. When it's a technical question, everyone flames quickly for freedom or the demonstrably best, but it feels the other way on ethical questions now. The particular cases may not worry many people yet, but the character assassination and disrespect is disturbing me. I already pointed out that I thought it was a bad idea and that it needs to be resolved in another thread... Sorry, I'm not terribly interested in fighting for it though, you seemed to be doing a fine job of that yourself and indeed at least one of the Debian-UK people seemed to indicate that they were going to change things to make it opt-in instead so perhaps you've already won that battle... Good luck with discovering debian's attitude to commerce, whatever the outcome. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:34:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: I don't know how real those concerns are, but I know I've heard them. Man, I love open source FUD. Yes, I rock. :) Sorry, I didn't look up the other thread I started, been kinda busy replying to people. :) Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: AIUI, that's been frowned upon in the US because actually selling things makes you liable for collecting/paying sales tax which is a huge nuisance. Giving stuff away and asking for a donation, meanwhile, doesn't. Different countries handle that differently. For reference, Australia allows certain companies to call themselves charities for tax purposes; but they're restricted to very specific purposes, none of which cover developing a free operating system to benefit humanity as a whole. Do you happen to be familiar with how the UK handles it? I'm not really sure it matters though, I think Debian should be consistant one way or the other. If there are people who specifically agree with you then let them speak for themselves. How about you do the same, instead of claiming that none of us do? Fair enough. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Nope, if you are really from the US, then your view on this is limited by the way you think there, and if not, no idea if you ever participated in associative life. Uhh... http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/info Debian does not sell any products. I don't *think* that my being in the US is somehow making me read that differently than the rest of the world, but hey, if you see something different on that page, please let me know! Notice that the link is on the CD selling page, right ? Even so, that was the general policy as I understood it... Should we be saying that we don't sell CDs (do the DUS folks sell CDs? I dunno) only there? Should we be pointing out that we do sell t-shirts somewhere? Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Let's say your paroquial association or housewife get-together association, start to sell house-made cakes in order to finance the repainting or fixing of the roof of their church or school or whatever. Or school children raising money for an excursion or whatever. You didn't reply to this above example. Plain simple, is this commercial and business for you, or is it not ? I'd say it's commercial but non-profit and small enough to not have to deal with taxes. I'm not sure that a large international organization such as Debian could really just say well, so long as you don't have to pay taxes in your jurisdiction it's ok... If that's the policy then alright then. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For this part it's a misunderstanding of what commercial means. I tried to work past this in the thread on d-d where I brought up the possibility of Debian being a commercial organization and it was made quite clear to me (by Manoj, if memory serves, sorry if I'm wrong) that there was no such misunderstanding about the term. It was understood that commercial !=3D for-profit and that it was being commercial at all which was the problem. Well, no, that doesn't obviously follow. It's clear from this discussion that people do disagree about what the word commercial means, and that (for some) commercial is worse than sells things. Well, it seemed clear to me that some, at least, had a problem with sells things alone and so the issue wasn't a misunderstanding with what commercial meant anyway. It's somewhat worth pointing out that Mark has something of a reputation [...] Not relevant and so not worth commenting on. Honestly, I wish these constant attempts to assign blame for this situation would just stop. =20 I'm not trying to blame anyone. When it comes to I don't follow debian-uk and it certainly doesn't sound like it's actually been resolved in an acceptable way regardless, it's entirely relevant. There are some people for whom things will not be resolved in acceptable ways. Alright, it has yet to be resolved in an acceptable way for me. :) It's worthwhile to attempt to convince Debian at large to become a commercial entity. This didn't seem terribly likely to happen when I brought it up last but perhaps it's time for another go at it. When it comes to the technical side of things, policy follows practice. Alright. In general I believe the practice *has* been that we don't sell things. I agree that policy follows practice on the technical side but it's not always clear that the 'practice' is something we *don't* do. It's long been the case that Debian sells CDs at European events. To the best of my knowledge, until now there has never been any real complaints over this sort of behaviour. It's hardly as if we've been hiding this - see http://www.debian.org/events/2003/1008-linuxexpo-report for instance. I'd argue that this isn't something that Debian as a whole has an objection to, and that (as a result) the website should be changed. Alright, then let's change the website and let's put up a better explanation of our policies regarding selling things. I'd rather that policy not be location-specific but it sounds like it'd have to be for what's currently happening to be accurately reflected. I don't think it's hard to know why the current situation has arisen... Some folks believe, as I do, that it'd be alright for Debian to be a commercial entity, and they then decided to just do it. It's unfortunate they didn't first get Debian/SPI to agree with them. If they had then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The current situation of Why Debian doesn't sell CDs. I've no idea why that's the way it is. What historical process led to this situation? It sounds like, at least in the US, there's an issue with sales tax, and quite possibly that's what other DDs believed in terms of what Debian's policy is. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: Even so, that was the general policy as I understood it... Should we be saying that we don't sell CDs (do the DUS folks sell CDs? I dunno) only there? Should we be pointing out that we do sell t-shirts somewhere? I have a feeling that the main reason Debian doesn't sell anything is that Debian doesn't own anything, because Debian doesn't exist as a legal entity (that's what SPI's for). That being the case, Debian also cannot attend Expos. It's always a case of individuals and/or organisations doing so on Debian's behalf. If they're doing it on Debian's behalf then they should be following Debian's policies, which at least on the website has thusfar been that Debian doesn't sell products (or perhaps just doesn't sell CDs). That's also been the general understanding that I've had of Debian's polciies. Not to mention that it sounds like you'd like an SPI-like organization in the UK for Debian which would then be the organization attending the expos anyway... Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, there's a BIG similarity: * both took the debian name for business use without consent; You are pretty much the only one who asserts that Debian UK has anything at all to do with business. Despite being asked for clarification several times, you have spectacularly failed to document, or even argue for, this assertion. The rest of us conclude that your assertion is simply false, and that you somehow has a personal axe to grind which has no grounding in reality. I'd have to disagree with this. It's certainly commercial in what it does and that's been frowned upon by DDs for Debian/SPI in the US. Also, just because there aren't more people saying it looks like a business doesn't mean it isn't one. Also, who exactly is 'the rest of us'? It certainly doesn't include me and I'd claim that it doesn't include anyone but you. If there are people who specifically agree with you then let them speak for themselves. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [ I've been trying to let this stuff drop. *sigh* ] I'm quite sure you'd appriciate it being dropped entirely and for you to be able to go on your merry way doing whatever you'd like. Unfortunately, life doesn't quite work that way. :) d. You could grow up... Gee, that's a terribly useless response. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Scripsit Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: You are pretty much the only one who asserts that Debian UK has anything at all to do with business. Despite being asked for clarification several times, you have spectacularly failed to document, or even argue for, this assertion. I'd have to disagree with this. It's certainly commercial in what it does and that's been frowned upon by DDs for Debian/SPI in the US. As far as I can see in this thread, no concrete example of behavior that could be characterized as commercial had been brought forward. You might want to check on the definition of 'commercial' then. Apparently you're using some definition that the rest of the world isn't. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's just a more formal, more accountable situation than what was happening before when Steve shoved Debian money into a shoebox under his bed. Things have gotten muddled though and that's the problem. There's a number of issues here: 1) Holding money in the UK on behalf of Debian 2) Selling t-shirts and whatnot 3) The name issue with 'Debian-UK' 4) The 'opt-out' membership 5) The beer-bashes 6) The bank account For my part, I think #1, #3 and #6 go just fine together. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. #2 and #5 work fine together also but shouldn't be done under something claiming close ties to Debian. The monies should also be seperated. If the selling-t-shirts folks want to donate to Debian, that's fine, but the Debian side should only be spending money at direct orders of the DPL and should be reporting the holdings and expenses and balance information to the DPL (and/or maybe SPI? Not sure, that'd need to be worked out). #4 was just a bad idea, and really should be corrected. Figure out who wants to be a part of it and who doesn't and update the membership accordingly. Accept the fact that not all DDs in the UK will want to be a part of it. It's not there as an evil overlord business and participants on debian-uk are bored silly explaining this over and over. Still Mark [0] persists in grinding his axe. Hell he's even said he's going to on this list: ``c. I slowly work through Not In Our Name-style tactics.'' Businesses are not inherently evil but they do have different priorities than Debian. I don't follow debian-uk and it certainly doesn't sound like it's actually been resolved in an acceptable way regardless. The supposed business is selling things like Debian CDs and DVDs and t-shirts with Debian emblazened on them. I can't honestly see why anyone on this list would object to that. Do you Stephen? Sure, just the same as people object to Debian/SPI selling CDs, DVDs or t-shirts, or actually spending money for that matter. There's a number of issues involved when you start doing things commercially. Certainly the first one is 'what is the priority'? Another is, does this unfairly compete against others? Personally, I think Debian/SPI should be selling things but I respect that the apparent majority disagrees with me on that. Certainly if Debian/SPI isn't going to do it then Debian/SPI in other countries shouldn't either. That's what Debian-UK comes across to me as- the UK branch of Debian. It seems you'd like for it to be percieved that way as well. It's not if it's selling things. It's all about promoting Debian in all the right ways by going to expos and events in the UK. This seems a bit orthogonal to the other issues, but I'll bite. Honestly, I'd rather see 'Debian' on a list of expo attendees than 'Debian-UK'. It's about promoting Debian, so go there as Debian, and act as Debian does. I don't understand why Mark is so against this promotion of Debian, funding of some Debian related trips and yes, occasionally bits of sustenance by way of thanks for hard working people manning an expo stand. I just don't get it. I don't think it's appropriate to put words into other mouths. You're drawing a conclusion there which is almost certainly incorrect and attempting to draw an 'us vs. them' line. Let's leave such foolishness at the door, please. Nothing here is going to hurt Debian; the DPL got dragged into the debate and has approved the use of the trademark; and the people involved (Steve, Phil, Vince, others who man the stall year in year out) get their hard and well justified work derided in public. The DPL has only approved the use of the mark for the interim. Do not be suprised if that use is later recinded, in fact, if I were you I'd prepare for it or even better take action to make it a non-issue. I realise that money can be very devisive but these are relatively small amounts of money used well for the good of Debian. Even small amounts of money can change people's priorities. How MJ Ray can kick up so much fuss about this and still claim to be working for Debian and Free Software is beyond me. Let's stop with the garbage, please. It doesn't help us come up with an acceptable solution. Also, who exactly is 'the rest of us'? It certainly doesn't include me and I'd claim that it doesn't include anyone but you. If there are people who specifically agree with you then let them speak for themselves. Do you really want this to turn into a whole thread of I see no problem with Debian UK either! ? No, I'd much rather people not make blatently false claims. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Every post of yours on this subject, in my opinion, shows you *adore* bureaucracy or you wouldn't persist in this mindnumbingly dull debate over a point which has no relevance to -project any more (given the grant of the trademark use). I hate to have to point it out, but the grant was for the interim and this is actually a pretty decent place to try to show some of the concerns DDs have that will hopefully be incorporated into the Debian/SPI trademark policy which will quite possibly end up recinding the interim trademark grant. So, don't try to use the excuse that the DPL gave you an interim trademark license as showing that what you're doing is right. That's not how it works. We would be most glad then if you would stop trying to harm it by involving all the members in a stupid flamewar on -project then. Trust me you are visibly doing harm. Attempting to work out the concerns of DDs and how the Debian trademark should be used isn't exactly a 'stupid flamewar'. It almost certainly will help Debian in the end as it's been shown that not having a clear trademark policy certainly hurts Debian. You do realise that you are potentially making people think twice before they sell t-shirts/CDs elsewhere right? It'd be a very good thing to have people think twice before starting up an organization with 'Debian' in the name. Perhaps things like DCC could have been avoided then. Nothing here is going to hurt Debian; [...] You can predict the future now? No, I trust the people. Based on previous experience where they could have just *taken* the money and things weren't so public. Certainly there's more at stake here than just the money aspect. Debian's goal is not to raise money, after all. How many fine, upstanding UK Debian Developers have to stand up and say Steve, Phil and Vince are great guys and should be allowed to continue what they've been doing without MJ's harrassment before you stop? Being great guys doesn't necessairly mean that Debian's trademark policy should allow people to create businesses using the Debian mark, even if it's for selling t-shirts. You had your chance for input as Phil has pointed out. It's only recently you've adopted these attempts to destroy the good work that is happening in Debian's name in the UK; yes, in Debian's name, as it rightly should being Debian work promoting Debian! Yet, Debian doesn't sell t-shirts. I'm done now. I can see I can't reason with you but please reconsider your position. This seems to be the result of a number of these threads. It's not terribly useful. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I realise that money can be very devisive but these are relatively small amounts of money used well for the good of Debian. Even small amounts of money can change people's priorities. It seems that you are under the impression that the activities such as the selling of T-shirts are done for the purpose of raising money. (Not surprising given the spin that MJ Ray's been putting on it) It doesn't actually make any difference at all to me. The issue here is that you're operating commercially while trying to appear as part of Debian. In the end, Debian needs to decide if it will partake in commercial activities. From what I've heard so far the answer has been 'no', with concerns about losing donations of hardware and hosting and whatnot, esp. from universities. I don't know how real those concerns are, but I know I've heard them. Personally, I think it's something Debian should do, with perhaps eventually having Debian able to sustain itself. Certainly, I feel that Debian should remain non-profit but I don't believe that prevents it from selling things (perhaps I'm wrong). That's neither here nor there though. The issue at hand is if 'Debian' operating in other countries will allow itself to do things 'Debian' itself doesn't, and I certainly don't think it should. I certainly have no qualms with you setting up a company, society, organization, whatever, which sells t-shirts, buys a few beers, and contributes money to Debian. Don't call it Debian though, it's not. I would certainly appriciate an organization of appropriate kind in the UK to handle Debian/SPI funds. That organization should be accountable to the DPL and Debian, should provide periodic accounting reports, and should only recieve/spend money as appropriate for Debian. Currently, unfortunately, it sounds like that's not Debian-UK as currently implemented. [...] So, we do trade T-Shirts, but the primary motivation is to provide Debian fans with stuff they might like, not to make money out of it. My recollection is that Debian, at other expos and conventions where Debian has been present, has given out CDs and t-shirts for free. I'm not entirely sure where they've come from but I think they've been donated to Debian for that purpose. I don't recall seeing anything on the Debian/SPI expense reports about buying them though. I also recall some Debian 'PR' mailing list or discussion about it and gathering the appropriate materials and whatnot for a booth. I think that was in the US, but I'm not entirely sure. I also don't know the current status or what they do exactly these days. [...] I agree that there is a danger of corruption that goes along with the presence of money, but I don't appreciate the implication that such corruption is inevitable. In fact the level of honesty demonstrated by those involved over the years has been impeccable. There have been many occasions where people who could certainly have done with the money have had physical access to hundreds or thousands of pounds in cash, without incident. I didn't mean to imply that there exists or would exist corruption. My concern is that Debian has thusfar, from all I've been able to tell, decided to be a non-commercial entity and that Debian in other countries should adhere to that as well. If you're not intending to be 'Debian' in the UK then a name change is in order. If you are, then you need to be non-commercial, or convince Debian to go commercial itself. Rather than attempting to imply that there must always be an ulterior motive, I think we (Debian as a whole) should congratulate ourselves that we've managed to establish an environment in which such ethical behaviour can be expected. I didn't mean to imply an ulterior motive. I appriciate your interest in attempting to have Debian be a commercial entity but I feel that you're going about it in quite the wrong way. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:12:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: We would be most glad then if you would stop trying to harm it by involving all the members in a stupid flamewar on -project then. Trust me you are visibly doing harm. Attempting to work out the concerns of DDs and how the Debian trademark should be used isn't exactly a 'stupid flamewar'. It almost certainly will help Debian in the end as it's been shown that not having a clear trademark policy certainly hurts Debian. No, you are wrong, this is a stupid flamewar over inter-personal dislikes or whatever of some UK guys, who have a misunderstanding about the debian-uk association, as happens in lot of associations i guess, and this is very very quickly gettting over anoying, so all UK-guys concerned, please stop being stuborn and prideful and whatever, and go speak with each other and stop making yourself ridicoulous in front of the wider debian community. It's not quite as simple as that, unfortunately. I'd be happier if it was. I feel there is an issue regarding if Debian should be a commercial or a non-commercial entity, and how that affects its branches in other countries and accordingly the Debian trademark policy. It happens that the DUS/Debian-UK/whatever people have pushed this issue to the forefront by attempting to set up what appears to be a commercial Debian branch in the UK but I don't feel this issue is really isolated to them. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Scripsit Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that you are under the impression that the activities such as the selling of T-shirts are done for the purpose of raising money. (Not surprising given the spin that MJ Ray's been putting on it) It doesn't actually make any difference at all to me. The issue here is that you're operating commercially while trying to appear as part of Debian. How can you continue claiming that Philip's activities are commercial, in response to the very paragraph where he patiently explains that they are not? He quite clearly points out that what he's doing is commercial by showing us that he buys and sells goods (t-shirts generally it sounds like). That's commercial activity. It may still be non-profit but that's a different issue. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks
* Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:57:20AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: It would compete with long-standing suppliers (debianshop.com?) and may deter UK commercial support, which needs to grow. Being cognizant of this problem is worthwhile, but at present I have no data with which to evaluate it. I suspect I'm not alone -- can you elaborate on this list for the benefit of the members of the Project who are not intimately familiar with Debian-related affairs in the U.K.? It seems to me that there's certainly this general feeling among some that Debian should not be involved in any commercial enterprises. In some cases/countries I believe it may also deny a company 'not-for-profit' status. Seperate from that issue, I believe, there may be cases in which an organization's policies might deny donations (of money, hardware, or other resources) to a commercial entity, regardless of if it's for-profit or not-for-profit. Personally I disagree with this, but hey, that's just me. If it's the general consensus that Debian (and SPI I suppose) shouldn't be involved in commercial enterprises then I'd have to say that things which appear to be Debian arm in country ABC should also have to adhere to that. Certainly, Debian U.K. appears to be the U.K. arm of Debian and as such I'd generally expect it to follow Debian's guidelines, policies, etc, regarding what it can and can not do. It's unfortunate that probably goes against what it's currently doing, but that's life. :/ On the other hand, if it's the general consensus that it's acceptable for Debian/SPI to do things like sell t-shirts to support Debian (but continuing to be not-for-profit working in the public interest, etc), then I'd encourage people to *do* that, and to raise funds by those means so as to allow us to do things like: a) Buy equipment b) Buy services (such as an accountant, or whatever) c) Buy hosting (for uber-important machines) d) Fund travel for Debian-related activities (Developers themselves, or perhaps even for non-DD's, or for the DPL, or whatever, so long as it furthers Debian's goals, and is in the public interest, etc). Any trademark license grant would not be irrevocable. If DUS did anything meriting revocation of that license, I'm sure it would be noteworthy in the press and tarnish their reputation. I agree that we should only grant revokable trademark licenses, if that's something we can sanely do in terms of the law (clearly this is something which would need to be discussed with our counsel). Why not treat DUS and DCC similarly? Both are developer business initiatives presenting themselves as done deals using Debian's name, and DCC is a lot less secretive, as far as I can tell. My initial answer to this, at least, is that I thought DUS was a not-for-profit organization. DCC is certainly made up of quite a few for-profit companies and I have to say that the way DCC sounds to me makes it much less clear that it's not actually some group within Debian that controls the core packages. Debian U.K. does at least make it sound like it's not actually a part of Debian but something outside it, though I don't feel that terribly strongly. Were Debian U.K. a set of commercial companies putting out something called Debian I'd be much less pleased with it. I don't understand in what sense DUS is a developer business initiative. My guess is that this is the whole 'commercial' thing. They sell things, therefore they must be bad. Not a sentiment I agree with but I believe that's part of the concern being raised by some here. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Martin Michlmayr wrote: Trusted Debian was an open source project too and yet the Debian project felt their use of the DEBIAN mark wasn't appropriate. There is an effort going on to update the trademark policy (which will also make it clearer that it's not just about businesses). Maybe it would be great to come up with something that can be used by everyone interested. I'm thinking along the lines granting a license to use Debian derived as part of the name for products / efforts to create products derived from Debian, so that Debian derived trusted Gnu/Linux or Consortium for a Debian derived core would be covered. OK, now it's time to admit that I'm not a marketing expert and the examples offered do suck, but maybe it's a good idea. After all, we do like derived distros to reference Debian... This sounds like something reasonable to do in terms of a trademark policy but there's a couple problems with it. If 'Debian derived' actually falls under trademark requirements at all (I'm not sure it does) and, if it does, then people still need to ask Debian/SPI for an official submark before using it. Basically, that kind of a policy is fine, but doesn't remove the need for Debian/SPI to protect its trademarks. I havn't mentioned this before but I get the impression, at least from LMI, that creating submarks and handling the licenseing of such probably requires some amount of a lawyer's time and I'm not 100% sure it'd really be fair to ask someone to do that pro-bono. In the end we may have to establish a setup similar to LMI. I don't like it, but I like the idea of Microsoft selling 'Ultimate Debian' much, much less. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
* Alexander Wirt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Florian Weimer schrieb am Sonntag, den 24. Juli 2005: How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they using the name Debian? Maybe you sould wait until its been more than a plan to do something before crying about names. There isn't anything official yet about the Consortium. No, actually, it's probably better to make sure those involved understand the trademark issues *before* they go off and develop advertising based off it, tell reporters about it, and who knows what else. The earlier the better since the earlier they're aware of it the easier it is for them to change it. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Debian Core Consortium ideas] No, actually, it's probably better to make sure those involved understand the trademark issues *before* they go off and develop advertising based off it, tell reporters about it, and who knows what else. The earlier the better since the earlier they're aware of it the easier it is for them to change it. Somehow I have the impression that Ian Murdock knows a little bit about Debian - we don't need to explain how it works to him. I think. Maybe. As long as they understand it. Is SPI aware of it? Has the name been officially licensed as a submark of Debian? Before babbling to the press using that name it certainly should be and I havn't seen anything on any of the lists about that being done (SPI or Debian). I suppose I don't follow *every* list, and I might have missed it, but it seems kind of unlikely. So, sure, Ian may have some idea about Debian, and that *might* imply some understanding of the trademark issues but it certainly sounds like they're going about setting up this consortium in the wrong way. Get your trademarks and whatnot set up *before* talking to the press about it all. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-24 07:25]: As always, feedback welcome. We're not trying to step on any toes. http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/debian-announce/msg00083.html Thank you, I'm aware of this. :-) But I don't see anything in here that's incompatible with what we're doing--for one, this isn't a business (it's not even really a consortium, since there won't be any formal organization behind it--the best way to describe it is that it's an open-source project). Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You said in the prior message that it's not going to be called Debian Core Consortium, that's good, as whatever you call it *shouldn't* include the term Debian in it unless you get an official submark of the Debian trademark from SPI. It's possible that could be done but assuming you can just use the Debian trademark in advertising, communication with the press, or as the name of anything is wrong. I would *strongly* encourage you to figure out what name you *do* want to use for this, encouarge that it *not* include the trademarked term Debian, or that you contact SPI regarding getting an official submark. I would encourage SPI to contact their counsel regarding this and that anyone involved in the creation of this new entity not be involved in any decisions by SPI on if the submark should be granted. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ok, this is most unexpected, so I'm going to have to take some time to consider my response. I can say with 100% certainty that a trademark policy more restrictive than the one adopted by Linus Torvalds for Linux isn't what the founder of this project had in mind. Uh, my response would be appropriate if Debian *did* have the trademark policy Linus uses for Linux. It's basically ask first, get an official submark before using it, or don't use it. It's pretty obvious that people involved in creating this new entity would have a conflict of interest as to if the submark should be granted or not, so they shouldn't be involved in the decision making associated with granting it or not. Stephen Stephen Frost wrote: * Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-24 07:25]: As always, feedback welcome. We're not trying to step on any toes. http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/debian-announce/msg00083.html Thank you, I'm aware of this. :-) But I don't see anything in here that's incompatible with what we're doing--for one, this isn't a business (it's not even really a consortium, since there won't be any formal organization behind it--the best way to describe it is that it's an open-source project). Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You said in the prior message that it's not going to be called Debian Core Consortium, that's good, as whatever you call it *shouldn't* include the term Debian in it unless you get an official submark of the Debian trademark from SPI. It's possible that could be done but assuming you can just use the Debian trademark in advertising, communication with the press, or as the name of anything is wrong. I would *strongly* encourage you to figure out what name you *do* want to use for this, encouarge that it *not* include the trademarked term Debian, or that you contact SPI regarding getting an official submark. I would encourage SPI to contact their counsel regarding this and that anyone involved in the creation of this new entity not be involved in any decisions by SPI on if the submark should be granted. Thanks, Stephen -- Ian Murdock 317-578-8882 (office) http://www.progeny.com/ http://ianmurdock.com/ A nerd is someone who uses a telephone to talk to other people about telephones. --Douglas Adams -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.
* John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 1) Finding problems, reporting bugs, submitting patches 2) Answering questions on the mailing lists from developers that need help solving an arch-specific bug 3) Making sure we have a working buildd and debian developer machine And 3 is as much a DSA problem as anything. 3 is only that way because it's made out to be that way by DSA co.; it seems to me anyway. Personally I think it'd be good to have more involvment in 3 by others who could perhaps by the 'official porters' or what have you; hopefully also reducing the load on DSA co. to allow for work improving the performance of the buildd network and changing it to scale better, etc... Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 3) Making sure we have a working buildd and debian developer machine And 3 is as much a DSA problem as anything. Yah, the problem with that is that it's not really reasonable to expect DSA to be passionate about each and every one of the 11 ports, the same way porters with a direct interest would be. Just as we shouldn't expect brainfood to be passionate about every piece of hardware they've agreed to host for us. Unfortunately, these seem to be the people that have been left holding the bag. It doesn't have to be this way though... For a couple of the mips buildds, at least, I'm the local admin and as such deal with issues related to the hardware and perhaps some of the other things (installs, kernels maybe, etc). I havn't got much to do w/ the buildds on them though. Soliciting debian-alpha for people might help find someone, if that's necessary (though it sounds like maybe it isn't in this specific case..). I'd be willing to consider hosting an alpha box if necessary, the only reason I hesitate is I havn't got an unlimited supply of power bw. If a hosting company in the Northern Virginia area was willing to donate some space, power bw (and not much at that, really) I'd be happy to be the 'local admin' and deal with caring for however many machines they'd be willing to host.. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thinking about (mis)use of -private
* Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:43:13PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: No, that's d-d-a, just get around the name issue (ie: ignore it/get over it/whatever) and use it, just don't abuse it. But there's arguably a lot of non-developers subscribed to d-d-a as well... Uninteresting and unimportant unless it's something that *only* developers should see and then it could be something for d-p but that should be a *very* rare case indeed and not what was under discussion from my understanding. Non-developers subscribe to d-d-a to hear follow DD stuff. I don't see there as being any reason for them to piss moan about there being DD stuff on d-d-a, that's just plain silly. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thinking about (mis)use of -private
* Daniel Ruoso ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On the other side, d-d-a is a list which has a very low traffic, and certainly almost every developer see the posts in d-d-a, but... not every email that intends to reach all developers is appropriate to d-d-a since it's not allways an announce. So, thinking about all of this, I have a question... Isn't a public mailing list (with public logs), but moderated to @debian.org posters, a possible solution to the current misuse of debian-private? No, that's d-d-a, just get around the name issue (ie: ignore it/get over it/whatever) and use it, just don't abuse it. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:40 -0500, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Simple, the DPL selects them. We elected him, and that indicates that we trust his decisions on such matters as how to spend Debian funds in the best interest of Debian, etc. Hmm. I can just see DPL politics getting more vicious ... You'd prefer we send back the donations we're sent, or just accept them and not spend them at all? I don't like either of those. FWIW: I'd rather spend them when the time has come to spend them. *blink*, when's that? Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some thoughts along these lines before, I imagine. You're thinking about founding a corporation. There are plenty of those already. It is not necessary to hijack Debian's name and trademarks in order to do this. That corporation cannot and will not be the organisation currently referred to as 'Debian'. Nor could it do what Debian does. The absence of control is fundamental to our organisational structure. SPI already exists, and already owns Debian's trademarks. Sorry if you don't choose to believe it. I don't believe that there's an absence of control and I find it amusing that you seem to think there is. Regardless, even if there was I don't believe it's fundamental to our organisational structure (the fact that we *have* an organisational structure would imply the control you seem to feel doesn't exist). My feeling is that SPI and Debian should attempt to grow towards being self-sustaining, at least in terms of hardware and hosting and whatnot. I'm not saying the existing hardware/hosting should be dropped though, just that it'd be nice if we could afford to pay for it. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: SPI already exists, and already owns Debian's trademarks. It holds them in trust. That is not the same thing. Right, that means it holds them but can't do anything unless directed by Debian. Kind of a catch-22 there. I don't believe that there's an absence of control and I find it amusing that you seem to think there is. You're delusional. Nobody in the project can tell me what to do. That's written into the constitution. That wouldn't change. Funny enough, ideally we'd be *less* vulnurable to the whims of (certain) companies. You have clearly been taken over by aliens. This shameless attempt to turn Debian into a puppet of the US corporate government will not be permitted to succeed. *I'm* delusional? Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Right. Money, in the form of donations, is nothing new. Money-for-work or money-for-advertizing is. There is a difference; the former is generouisly donated by people voluntarily because of the good they thing debian is doing; the latter is because of business value earned -- and in my opinion this latter is not desirable, for various reasons I have stated in other emails. And about this I disagree. amazes me. Debian gets donations all the time from people and companies, sometimes quite sizable ones. The DPL doesn't go nuts and start trying to demand more production from us or any such thing though, even though, yes, that would probably increase the donations coming in. If we have a revenue stream sufficient to keep our operations going w/o needing donations of hosting and other services I don't know that I'd consider that a bad thing. I would. Money only from donations keeps us honest -- and keeps us to the core of what we started out to be. Turning us into a business, even a not-for-ptofit business, may taint the decisions made, and the decisions may be made inthe interest of more revenue rther than our users, like the SC lays it out to be. SPI *is* a business, a not-for-profit one, and Debian is by *far* the controller of SPI. I don't think it's money only from donations that keeps us honest, it's the *SC* that keeps us honest, and each other through the SC. I seriously doubt that the number of flamewars we have over if we're following the SC by doing x, y or z would somehow decrease because we're getting money from ads or whatever. Really, if there was even a smell of someone going against the best interests of our users in order to increase revenue the noise from the rest of us would be deafening, just like it is from this *proposal* that we *might* consider other methods of funding. In addition, the money from donations can be abused just as easily as money from anywhere else. Developers could solicite donations from companies if they feel they've got a chance of then being able to pocket that money. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:33:14 -0500, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Well, sure, but it's something intelligent to do w/ a consistent revenue stream that would benefit us through SPI (at least, imv). Additionally, Debian has funded developers to debconf before, I'm not really sure that's a good idea. Free holidays for developers doesn't seem like something we should be doing. Not sure I agree, I think it does benefit Debian as a whole to have our developers get to meet each other and work things out. How does one select which set of developers to pay? Can we afford to fly all 1000 DFD's to a common location even once? Simple, the DPL selects them. We elected him, and that indicates that we trust his decisions on such matters as how to spend Debian funds in the best interest of Debian, etc. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Kim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At first it was a good idear to post this question here but since yesterday nothing much productive has happened. Without offending anyone it is a bit annoying to watch the same couple of people going on and on about this issue - leading to nowhere (according to my opinion). You obviously havn't been on Debian lists very long... If the persons in charge of making the final decision still is having doubt about it, I suggest a vote. This will clearly show how many is against and how many is for. So each member on the list has one vote by e-mail. Rather than making somekind of web vote this will provide the most un-cheating way. The decision in this specific case was already made, quite a while ago in fact. The current discussion is, imv, larger and more interesting and hasn't really been settled but we at least been able to identify the specific point over which there is disagreement. There's something of an option at this point and that is to either try to convince the other side through presentation of facts that they're wrong or to perhaps bring it to a vote so all of Debian can weigh in on it, or just drop it till it comes up again due to something else later. :) To post the question at first was a good idear and it gave an opportunity for people to express their opinions. Then I guess let me just say some of us aren't quite done yet. :) Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: SPI *is* a business... SPI is a corporation. That does not make it a business (just attend a few board meettings...) I've been to a few of them, and am an SPI member... corporation, business, shrug Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Kim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: Then I guess let me just say some of us aren't quite done yet. :) And thats cool, but it seems to me that the discussion has left the original area and has become a one on one discussion about something which really is a matter of different personal opinion than what concerns debian. It is certainly of concern to Debian what it's members think and this discussion could very well be used as a basis for a GR (either to allow Debian doing something commercial, or to disallow it) and a link to this thread made available for some light reading on the subject. Not to sound all wrong - I just think it would be enough simply to express ones opinion regarding this issue and explain possible misunderstandings and thats it. The rest of the discussion is something which maybe should just go on personaly. I for one didn't find it productive. What I got from the original question was kindda like a express your opinions and not a debate your differences after you have expressed your opinions. :-)) The thread is what we make of it. You're right, it doesn't go specifically to the original question in the thread but the most that would mean to me is that we might open up a new thread about it and, personally, I just hadn't bothered. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:40 -0500, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Simple, the DPL selects them. We elected him, and that indicates that we trust his decisions on such matters as how to spend Debian funds in the best interest of Debian, etc. Hmm. I can just see DPL politics getting more vicious ... You'd prefer we send back the donations we're sent, or just accept them and not spend them at all? I don't like either of those. Erm, and it's not like this is something new.. No DPL has ever really done a whole lot with the money SPI controls for us till tbm did some stuff, I don't think, or perhaps I just didn't know about it (which would probably be true for most developers). So, perhaps the DPL politics will get more vicious because the candidates know now that SPI holds money on behalf of Debian but, well, it seems likely to me that everyone who's run for DPL in the past has known this anyway? At least since it's been true? I don't know, but I don't think a DPL candidate that ran on the platform of elect me and I'll send each of you $100 from our account and drain it! would make it very far. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source (was: Google ads on debian.org)
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:31:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: Do you have any suggestion as to something that'd be a consistent revenue source for Debian that you *wouldn't* be opposed to? Maybe a Debian Magazine (with/without ads?)? Or a subscriber-only Debian website (run by those willing to provide the content for it, obviously)? What about Debian selling CDs directly (though, well, it'd help if we released on a more regular basis for that, but then, that'd be a good thing for us to do *anyway*)? SPI could start a sponsorship program for Debian and the other associated programs like the FSF Europe did[1]. That could mean that there would be 200 s upporters with EUR 10/month, ..., and 2 with 500 EUR/month or something. Does anybody actually have any uses for such a revenue source that would not be better served by creating an independent organisation? Not *entirely* sure what you mean here. As mentioned elsewhere before, SPI might have some use for an accounting service at the very least. Additionally, Debian has funded developers to debconf before, as I understand it, as well as retained some amount for emergency spending for hardware or whatnot. Other potential uses for revenue could be buying obscure hardware off eBay or from wherever that we don't have enough of, and possibly helping to cover the costs of hosting that equipment. That's the part where all these things usually fall down. Debian does not currently need it. I can't imagine any scenario in which Debian could need it, which is not a case of somebody trying to load extra irrelevant tasks onto Debian. I tend to disagree. I think that in general people don't think of Debian as having any money (or needing any) and therefore don't consider the possibility of Debian doing anything with it. We are not a clearing house for random things vaguely releated to free software. Perhaps this would be a more appropriate discussion to have w/ SPI, since they probably fit this category at least slightly closer than Debian does, though, honestly, Debian seems pretty well lined up in that category too. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 2004-12-14 14:35:54 + Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: . When we are supposed to generate income with the web page it is a commercial web page. This is, also, wrong. As mentioned elsewhere, not-for-profit doesn't mean no-income. It seems quite correct to me. Not-for-profit is not the same as non-commercial, as you rightly state. However, the poster is commenting on commerciality not not-for-profit status. I can quite understand that some people would not want to donate time towards a commercial enterprise. See, this is what I disagree with, that Debian would be made a 'commercial enterprise' by having ads on it's website. Perhaps it's just a language issue. . Several developers agreed to work on Debian and within the Debian project because it produces Free Software, adheres to a very strict freedom policy and the social contract and has no commercial interests. If I would want to work for commercial bodies, I could go to Red Hat, SuSE or Ubuntu. Again, not-for-profit isn't the same as no-income. I imagine certain (German) universities accept money from their students, does that make them commercial? Why are you mentioning universities in connection with this point? Universities are fairly clearly commercial, but some of them do not donate to commercial enterprises, which is the problem about hosting a few points earlier. Again, I think that's a language thing, and perhaps it's my fault. When the poster talks about being a commercial this or that with negative connotations I tend to feel he's saying evil for-profit companies as opposted to the actual definition of commercialism which is basically transactions for goods and services. My point with this was to point out that universities are commercial (they sell services) without being evil for-profit companies. Anyway, google are dangerous. No special rewards for them. Perhaps this is true, I don't know, and was pushing more towards acceptance of the idea as opposted to this particular scenario, which has already been dropped by tbm. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:48:38 -0500, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This gloom-and-doom prediction is really getting old. No, it wouldn't become a precedent, no, it wouldn't lower our principles, Yes, it does, in my opinion. no, it's not a step towards making Debian no longer free. It's a When you bring money into the picture, everything changes. Indeed, it is the love of money that ... Money is *nothing new* to Debian. The fact that you think it is amazes me. Debian gets donations all the time from people and companies, sometimes quite sizable ones. The DPL doesn't go nuts and start trying to demand more production from us or any such thing though, even though, yes, that would probably increase the donations coming in. couple ads on our web page to bring in a (probably small) revenue stream. Why do we need to do that? Have you considered that donation of services etc may dry up if people think Debian already has a revenue stream? You think that other people won't think of Debian as yet another red hat if we started a steady revenue stream? If we have a revenue stream sufficient to keep our operations going w/o needing donations of hosting and other services I don't know that I'd consider that a bad thing. Just because it's how we've been doing it doesn't make it the best possible way. Consider that Debian wouldn't be potentially subject to the whims of a for-profit company if it, say, started distributing something that said for-profit company didn't agree with. (Please note that this is *hypothetical*, and I'm *not* worried, or concerned that brainfood, et al, would ever do this, but what if they went out of business (let us hope it never happens)? Or decided they weren't able to help any longer? etc, etc). Perceptions count. I don't feel people's perceptions of Debian would change so dramatically. There are a number of other open source and free software websites which do this, it's not anything new and it certainly doesn't make you look like a commercial website, if anything it makes you look like *less* commercial. In your opinion. In mine, it means you have sold out. You know, that's funny, I *work* for a non-profit organization. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes: I wouldn't have any problem w/ Debian selling Debian CDs Who would do the selling? Interesting question, I imagine it would have to be SPI on behalf of Debian. Having a pay-per-bug is an interesting discussion too provided the results of the bugfix are made available to all under an appropriate license or whatever. You can have pay-per-bug right now. I'm sure many DDs would be willing to take money for fixing bugs. Paying SPI for work done for free by the DDs would be an entirely different thing, however. That's an interesting point. I guess what I was thinking was more like would Debian/SPI be willing to set up the mechanism to allow for pay-per-bug. One of the options of that, on a per-developer basis, could be do you want the funds to go to you, or be a donation to SPI?. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 2004-12-14 17:41:55 + Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, that's funny, I *work* for a non-profit organization. Meanwhile, all developers on SPI projects are sitting on the beach drinking cocktails, rather than any of them doing any work? Please, choose your next words more carefully. They could be your last.* That was a response to someone commenting that I had sold out (or implying it anyway). You managed to avoid quoting that, but I'm sure if you look you'll see. It was a defense of myself and, really, didn't have anything to do w/ SPI or Debian and wasn't intended to. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes: Interesting question, I imagine it would have to be SPI on behalf of Debian. But which specific individual would do the selling? It would involve a significant amount of work even if as much as possible was contracted out. Oh, I dunno, whomever wants to. The question was more of 'should Debian let it's developers do this as part of Debian (as opposted to outside of Debian)' or not. That's an interesting point. I guess what I was thinking was more like would Debian/SPI be willing to set up the mechanism to allow for pay-per-bug. One of the options of that, on a per-developer basis, could be do you want the funds to go to you, or be a donation to SPI?. If companies want to pay DDs directly for fixing bugs, that's fine. However, I don't think Debian should ever disburse money to developers for doing Debian software work. I wasn't actually suggesting that. I was suggesting that Debian might set up a mechanism whereby a company could ask for a bug to be fixed and then be told who to pay once it is (either said developer, with name and address, or to SPI as a donation by said developer). I didn't mean to suggest that SPI would collect the money and then pay it out to the developer. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:28:20PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: I would object to Debian itself selling copies of the CD's, or requiring payment for access to jigdo files or the archive, or a pay-per-bug option too. Having a pay-per-bug is an interesting discussion too provided the results of the bugfix are made available to all under an appropriate license or whatever. I don't think you've seriously thought this through. Go and figure out how you'd do it in a manner that would prevent abuse. I concluded a long time ago that it is not feasible. Perhaps not, as I said, I thought it'd be an interesting discussion, not that we should go out and market it as a new Debian thing to do. I don't mind valid critiques of why something isn't workable, I do mind knee-jerk reactions of I'll quit if Debian does that. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source (was: Google ads on debian.org)
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Not *entirely* sure what you mean here. As mentioned elsewhere before, SPI might have some use for an accounting service at the very least. That should be done by SPI, not us. Well, sure, but it's something intelligent to do w/ a consistent revenue stream that would benefit us through SPI (at least, imv). Additionally, Debian has funded developers to debconf before, I'm not really sure that's a good idea. Free holidays for developers doesn't seem like something we should be doing. Not sure I agree, I think it does benefit Debian as a whole to have our developers get to meet each other and work things out. as well as retained some amount for emergency spending for hardware or whatnot. We're already covered in that department. That might be justified if we didn't have any money in the bank, but we do. At the moment, and that seems to be the only purpose we're allowed to have money for, which I don't particularly like. Other potential uses for revenue could be buying obscure hardware off eBay or from wherever that we don't have enough of, and possibly helping to cover the costs of hosting that equipment. Don't seem to have any trouble there either. I don't recall the last time we had difficulty obtaining and hosting equipment. The problem has always been getting stuff done with the equipment we've already got. I'm not sure I agree, as I recall it was with some difficulty that we eventually got a couple of r5k machines (which are hosted in my house so I'm kind of familiar with it...) to help with the mips building. It's possible this could have been made easier by being willing to spend some cash to have it done. Sure, you could spend money on any of these things. But you can't *justify* spending money on them, because we don't need it. And I disagree, and these are only a few things upon which we could spend money, if we weren't so terribly concerned that it's a bad idea to spend money and we should just save it all in case the US gets nuked. Perhaps this would be a more appropriate discussion to have w/ SPI, since they probably fit this category at least slightly closer than Debian does Yes, it would appear to be legitimate for SPI to do this sort of thing. That should be done without involving Debian. Little hard to get much done when you don't have the involvment of the largest (far and away) project- we've seen that before. though, honestly, Debian seems pretty well lined up in that category too. Really can't see why you think that. hot-babe. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I received the following message from someone at Google: Google is interested in advertising on debian.org. I realize your site currently isn't running any advertising, however what we're proposing is much different, and complimentary to your sites goal. Normally, I reply to advertising requests on debian.org with a polite no. However, given that google ads are widely considered different to normal ads, and might even enhance a web site, I thought I'd ask on -project to see what other people think. Personally, I like the idea. I don't think it harms our image any and I think it's a good potential revenue stream. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Honestly, I cannot imagine a reason, why the Debian projects should turn their web pages into commercial web pages by adding Google ads to them. It's not clear to me that having ads would make them 'commercial'. This would be something that would have to be run by the appropriate people at SPI. I doubt tbm would have brought it up if it would cause a problem for the non-profit status of SPI. Maybe the next offer ist to place ads to the head or footer of each distributed mail on our list server? And maybe we can consider each suggestion on a case-by-case basis and make a decision on a case-by-case basis. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Kim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: First of all I think it is a bad idear based on the fact that it will make debian appear commercial. It will look like debian has business relations with what ever those ads represents. I disagree. There are ads on postgresql.org and I certainly don't think they make it look like Postgresql is commercial. In contrast, there are *lots* of commercial websites that don't run ads except for themselves. A couple you might be familiar with are redhat.com and suse.de/novell.com. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Frank Lichtenheld wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 06:35:15PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: I object. Not by any price we have to pay (and turning www.debian.org into a commercial page *is* a high price, which could also result in losing some of our sponsors who provide a mirror of the pages) Yeah, I think this are two important concerns: The legal implications and the consequences for mirroring the site. Let me add one more: Some authors of content on the web site may not want to continue to work on a web site that contains ads. (I don't, for example.) Funny, but you're happy to contribute to a distribution which is packaged up and sold on store shelves by for-profit organizations? Which also include some advertising sometimes too I believe? Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Alexander Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041213 18:14]: more money is always good. AFAIK Debian has more money, than we can (usefully) spend (at our current rate). I think that was pointed out just a feek weeks ago in the donate for e-Mail account discussion. I startet to use Debian, because it was not commercial, it was entire free, and I'm afraid, this will be the first step in the wrong direction. It will lower our principles, and it will become precedent case for our future doing. This gloom-and-doom prediction is really getting old. No, it wouldn't become a precedent, no, it wouldn't lower our principles, no, it's not a step towards making Debian no longer free. It's a couple ads on our web page to bring in a (probably small) revenue stream. There are a number of other open source and free software websites which do this, it's not anything new and it certainly doesn't make you look like a commercial website, if anything it makes you look like *less* commercial. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Stephen Frost: I disagree. There are ads on postgresql.org and I certainly don't think they make it look like Postgresql is commercial. I think it's disappointing. If this development continues, the only ad-free space on the web will be Microsoft's web site, a few obscure government sites, and lots of orphaned web pages which haven't been updated for years. (For most users, web ads are much more annoying than for us who can apply all kinds of filters to get a relatively ad-free (and popup-free!) browsing experience.) Sorry, most web ads just don't bother me. Pop-ups bother me, but I don't think anyone is advocating that. There's lots of ad-free space, most commercial sites which aren't ad-supported such as redhat.com, suse.de, etc, etc. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Lars H. Beuse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Those Google Ads are look the way they do. cause they're made for a special target group. So that's just quit a good marketing idea (not new). If you want you could say thats also way to make people think Google is different, they're serious, they're cool and, and and, but they just want to sell, and harden theire market position. A quit subversive Way of separating people from there money. And maybe in some cases textbased ads could be missunderstood as a part of the website. I think Google wants to put there ads on Debian to get some kind of 'big clean okay' for there way of doing commercials from another major open source project. Many people will think: Well, if that's okay for debian.org, it will be okay for many others, sooner or later. Not only debian.org will be affected by a decision. Sorry, but you're just too funny to think Debian is ahead of the game for *anything* except architectures (only because they're old) and total 'supported' package count. Google isn't looking for Debian to validate anything for them, to think otherwise is ridiculous. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Pete van der Spoel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041213 19:30]: I personally don't see the issues so problematic as you do. But: A lot of (valuable) project members disagree, and, frankly speaking, keeping you (and some other people happy) is much more important for Debians goals than to receive some money or not by google. So, in the end, I think we should decline the offer, because Debian is about the people and their freedom, and not about the money. I dunno how I missed this, but-- I agree w/ tbm, I don't see the issues as all that problematic. I find it disappointing, but not exactly suprising, that alot of the project members disagree outright at the very notion. Not very open-minded, in my view. :) I also think it's risky to basically relinquish control of part of the content of the Debian website. If Debian were strapped for cash then I think this could be sold (at least to me) as a 'necessary evil', but from where I sit I don't think that's the case. I tend to agree that we don't seem to need the money currently, although I do wonder about the possibility of what we might do with a consistent dependable revenue stream (debconf trips for Debian, additional obscure hardware and professional hosting for it). Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Hardened project status.
* Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This is something that should be handled at the pam level and shouldn't require special handling from ssh. (Assuming a good ssh pam implementation.) The last time I looked at the securid pam module from rsa it didn't work with our ssh, but that's because they made it dependent on bugs in ssh pam handling from older versions of ssh. shrug That's unfortunate. Do you know of any workarounds? We're seriously considering using RSA secureid with ssh (and quite possibly other things via pam...). Has RSA acknowledged this or said anything about correcting it? Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The restrictions permitted by a *registered* trademark are oppressive and Debian should not use them. Furthermore, it should not use copyright licences to police its logos because it is then promoting non-free software. They're not oppressive and Debian certainly *should* use them to avoid dillution of the Debian mark. Provided trademark law handles all the situations we need it to, I agree that we shouldn't need to have a restrictive copyright license. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This might be an inadvertant attempt to claim assocation, but it is still such an attempt and is covered by common law in the UK. People launching a commercial enterprise in England are expected to check for other similar enterprises already using that trademark and there is little room for argument if you get it wrong, whether or not that trademark was registered. I seriously doubt this is correct. Get a lawyer to back you up that having the trademark registered doesn't help with enforcing it and doesn't detract from the claims you can make. Additionally, make sure the same is true in other juristictions such as the US and the rest of the EU. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 2004-05-09 23:57:23 +0100 Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're not oppressive and Debian certainly *should* use them to avoid dillution of the Debian mark. They are oppressive. Have you read them? Have you looked at cases in this field? I have a good idea what they do, and I know that we can control how oppressive or not they are by how we enforce them and permit their use. The Debian project is not a traditional software publisher. It is not likely to create a traditional reseller channel, with agreements permitting the use of the trademark and so on, or at least I hope it's not! No, we're not traditional, but that doesn't mean there are no cases where we'd want to enforce our trademark. Certainly there won't be as many cases but that's not the same thing at all. If we don't have our trademark registered I seriously doubt we'll have much room in court to enforce it at all. Provided trademark law handles all the situations we need it to, I agree that we shouldn't need to have a restrictive copyright license. I consider that we do not need trademarks, so we at least agree that the logo licences are buggy. Probably, though I havn't actually read it yet yet. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 2004-05-09 23:59:30 +0100 Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Get a lawyer to back you up that having the trademark registered doesn't help with enforcing it and doesn't detract from the claims you can make. Additionally, make sure the same is true in other juristictions such as the US and the rest of the EU. I do not wish to prove claims that only you have stated, nor to engage lawyers in every known jurisdiction, and I think it is pompous of you to try to order me around in that way. I'm not ordering you, perhaps it wasn't clear but that's the justification I'd require in order to be able to *believe* you. I'm asking you to back up *your* claims, not mine. If that's not clear, then how about you more clearly state what claims you *are* making. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 2004-05-07 07:31:27 +0100 Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the Debian trademark we want use that is almost entirely unenforced except for a few particular (and somewhat poorly defined) situations. The only well-defined situation I can see at the moment is when someone attempts to claim debian association, backing or endorsement fraudulently. I believe that is covered adequately by other laws everywhere where we could enforce it. Is that correct? Uh, or they use the Debian trademark for something that's not Debian at all.. That's not necessairly claiming it as backing or endorsement from Debian. Not only is it not very Debian, but accurate use of the Debian mark to refer to our Debian doesn't look like something we can stop with trademarking in the UK: I don't get it. Doesn't this mean, also, that in the UK people *could* sell shirts with the Coke logo on them? In which case it would seem to me that the reasons above for having a trademark in the UK would be perfectly legit and very reasonable and enforceable, and their intended use? Or is the problem with the Coke logo really with it being copyrighted, in which case having the trademark for the reasons above and the copyright with a different license than the Coke folks do would seem perfectly reasonable and, again, seemingly enforcable unless there's some reason you can't enforce a trademark unless you're very strict with the copyright on it? The two would seem like seperate issues to me. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 2004-05-07 14:20:37 +0100 Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, or they use the Debian trademark for something that's not Debian at all.. That's not necessairly claiming it as backing or endorsement from Debian. If it's software, it seems illegal anyway. If it's not software, it's probably outside the scope of debian's registered trademark. Uh, it'd only be illegal if we have a trademark on Debian which made is illegal. If we don't then I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on there. I don't get it. Doesn't this mean, also, that in the UK people *could* sell shirts with the Coke logo on them? If it is just the logo, I think it could be argued that the shirts were represented as a product from the registrant, which may be blockable depending on the registration details. It would be difficult to use trademark law to stop you honestly selling shirts with a picture of a Coke can or bottle on it, as I understand it. I'm not a lawyer and I think you should consult one before trying this at home, though. Well, that's really my question. It seems likely that Coke would find something to bitch about in that case, but I'm not really sure. Do you support trying to use the debian mark to crack down on sellers of shirts without contracts with SPI? Erm, not if they're using the mark to mean Debian. Possibly if they're claiming the mark means something else, which would kind of be the point. It sounds to me like what you're saying is *exactly* why we'd want a trademark, and why it *would* be enforcable even if we don't have a contract with everyone who sells Debian t-shirt's (which isn't something I'd want to see being required). In which case it would seem to me that the reasons above for having a trademark in the UK would be perfectly legit and very reasonable and enforceable, and their intended use? I don't understand how this follows from the trademark law not preventing sale of Coke-related shirts. The concern was that we have to enforce our trademark in all cases if we want to be able to keep it and enforce it in certain circumstances. This doesn't make sense if you can use the Coke trademark without Coke doing something about it if you don't have a contract with them. Or is the problem with the Coke logo really with it being copyrighted, I believe this is a problem and part of the reason why the Coke logo design changes periodically. The coke photo shirt mentioned above may infringe copyright, depending on its purpose. Alright, that's fine, we can stipulate the license under which the Debian logo is used. Having a generous license there should *not* detract from our ability to enforce the Debian trademark since trademark and copyright are seperate and distinct from each other. in which case having the trademark for the reasons above and the copyright with a different license than the Coke folks do would seem perfectly reasonable and, again, seemingly enforcable unless there's some reason you can't enforce a trademark unless you're very strict with the copyright on it? The two would seem like seperate issues to me. They are almost completely different, which is why using copyright licence conditions to enforce trademarks usually results in a non-free licence. That's all I was noting. This doesn't make sense. You shouldn't need copyright license conditions to enforce trademarks, that's the point of trademarks, they don't have the same limitiations on them as copyright does but they do have other requirements different from copyright in order to be legit. Therefore, we could have a generous copyright license *and* a trademark and still be able to enforce the trademark, which makes having the trademark worthwhile and a good idea in general. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Maybe illegal is the wrong word. I believe we could still prosecute for passing off without a trademark? There is an identifiable group called debian with a presence in the UK, so one arguably cannot produce software called debian ... without their involvement or approval without causing confusion with this prior group. I'll need to look this up again, as it's common law not legislation, but it's the same reason that you cannot call your product MJ Ray's Moolie Grater if I produce moolie graters and that's not your one. Erm, I guess I thought this was the specific reason for trademarks. Perhaps not, IANAL. If that's not the *reason* for having a trademark then I don't understand why *anyone* would have one, and clearly that can't be right because *lots* of people pay a fair bit for them, people who have really good lawyers. There is a popular debian/lesbian shirt in the UK, although I don't know what agreements exist between the seller and SPI. I think it's perfectly fair to have that, although maybe someone can argue this is using the mark to mean something else? Provided they're either using 'Debian' to mean the Debian software project we're a part of, or to mean something unrelated to software. I think that's right, anyway. :) Anyway, trying to stop this probably wouldn't work. If someone produces debian round silver drinks coasters with a hole shirts then there's nothing our project's trademark would do about it, so it sounds to me like you're demonstrating exactly why the trademark is useless. Sorry, I was meaning 'some other software product' which could cause confusion, which is what the trademark is intended to avoid. Clearly non-software Debian's auto shop kind of things would be fine, and wouldn't be avoided by having a trademark anyway. The concern was that we have to enforce our trademark in all cases if we want to be able to keep it and enforce it in certain circumstances. I believe that you have to defend it from infringing use in the US. I do not remember whether the same is true here. (I am not a lawyer, remember?) IANAL either, but you were commenting on it and so was I. Hopefully someone who *is*, or a paralegal or something, could comment on this and clear up the confusion. It's starting to sound like maybe you don't need trademarks at all in the UK, or that you don't have to defend them in the UK or something, but that does seem quite odd to me. This doesn't make sense if you can use the Coke trademark without Coke doing something about it if you don't have a contract with them. As long as it is not infringing use of their trademark, they cannot touch you. Some debian developers seem ignorant about non-infringing uses of trademarks and some things they wish to prevent seem to be non-infringing uses IMO. The only way to prevent non-infringing (against the trademark) uses would be to copyright and restrict the licensing on the logo itself, AIUI. I don't think this would be benefitial but I am curious as to what exactly they're trying to prevent that wouldn't be infringing trademark law. Alright, that's fine, we can stipulate the license under which the Debian logo is used. Yes: I say MIT/X11-style now! Haha. Personally, I don't particularly care. So long as we have it trademarked so that it can't be used to mean some other software product I don't see the issue of having someone use the Debian logo, or some derivative of it, on their car, home, shirt, webpage, whatever. Having a generous license there should *not* detract from our ability to enforce the Debian trademark since trademark and copyright are seperate and distinct from each other. I agree entirely with that. It's the reverse case (where you do write trademark enforcement into copyright licences, or sometimes go further than that and try to prevent non-infringing uses, as in the newer XFree86 licence) which causes non-free-ness of the copyright licence IMO. Well, I want to understand why people (who started this thread, I believe?) don't think we could enforce the trademark if it's under a generous copyright license. That's the base issue here, I think. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
* Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes: I don't get it. Doesn't this mean, also, that in the UK people *could* sell shirts with the Coke logo on them? In which case it would seem to me that the reasons above for having a trademark in the UK would be perfectly legit and very reasonable and enforceable, and their intended use? I doubt it -- selling shirts would be a commercial purpose outside identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a licensee. Alright, now I think we might be getting somewhere. So the issue here is that, because selling a t-shirt with a trademark on it is outside the scope of identifying goods [...] it must therefore be enforced in order to claim that we're enforcing the trademark and have the right to *keep* the trademark then. Given that's the case- do we actually need a *contract* with people using the trademark outside of identifying goods [...]? Attempting to find a more technical solution- would it be possible to notify people we find who use the trademark in a way we approve of outside of identifying goods [...] that we're cool with them using it and to track such uses in a database maintained by SPI? Doesn't seem to me like that'd be too much effort on our part, or onus on their part. Of course, we could say that we'd prefer if they could notify us so that we could review their use and approve it and add them to our database ahead of time. AIUI, that still doesn't require a restrictive *copyright* on the logo. It does mean we need to stipulate what appropriate uses on the trademark are, but if you modify the logo so that it doesn't look like the trademark anymore I don't think there's a reason that derivative work needs to be restricted due to the copyright (unless the author of the derived work wants to put some additional copyright restrictions on it, of course). Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Ineffectual DPL?
* Adam Heath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So, in summary(I'm rambled on long enough), I see no point in having a DPL. Yeah, so, I disagree, yadda yadda. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Some Comments on Sexism in #debian
* Benj. Mako Hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: IIRC, the point Susan brought up at Debconf2 after the numerous so easy your grandmother can use it references was, why always the grand*mother*? Fact is, these little references paint the person as stupid, or unskilled, or somehow weaker (pick the term that's right if you don't like these but it's clearly not a good thing). In our society, we tend to have an easier time making that kind of comparison to women than men. Grandfathers are hardly more likely to be ubergeeks but they're not the ones that end of as the poster child for cluelessness. Then there's the possibility that, at least in the US from what I recall, you're more likely to have your grandmother still alive than your grandfather (women live longer on average and there are more male/female marriages where the male is older than where the female is older). As for age discrimination- there's been studies done which find that you learn faster/easier when you're younger and therefore if computers come along halfway through your life you're less likely to pick up on them quickly than children who live with them throughout their lives. Of course, there's exceptions all over the place to most everything. If you want to be PC (bleh) then you need to identify the crowd you're referring to specifically. Instead of so easy your grandmother can use it it'd be so easy the technically illiterate can use it, or some such. That's not the best term either, but it's closer to what's meant. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The proposed GR: catch-22
On 8 Jun 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not just the location of the archive that provides convenience to users. It's also the integration with the actual Debian distribution - things like the BTS and the quality control that goes with it matter too. Unfortunately, it also leads to significant user confusion. Already developers are having trouble, and describe the proposed resolution as removing non-free from Debian. The current situation makes non-free part of Debian in all but name, and most users and many Debian developers frequently get them confused. Are there some statistics that users are confused? When installing Debian a screen comes up and asks if the user would like access to the non-free sections of Debian and it explains what non-free is. Perhaps this should be enhanced and made more clear if there is confusion. Instead the proposal claims removal is necessary. If users are confused, let us educate them instead of attempting to remove from their sight what currently exists. Developers are very unlikely to be confused for they are required to read and agree to the documents which clarify Debian's policy on this. If those outside of Debian are confused again let us educate them. There are books around the world which contain ideas many do not agree with. Those who disagree with them should make their reasons clear and state why they do not, the books should not be burned. Stephen
Re: The proposed GR: catch-22
On 8 Jun 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are there some statistics that users are confused? When installing Debian a screen comes up and asks if the user would like access to the non-free sections of Debian and it explains what non-free is. Perhaps this should be enhanced and made more clear if there is confusion. Instead the proposal claims removal is necessary. If users are confused, let us educate them instead of attempting to remove from their sight what currently exists. If the screen says what you said it does, then already there's a problem. Since non-free is not part of Debian, there are no non-free sections of Debian, there are only non-free parts of the archive. Debian itself only contains `main'. Which means, in fact, that here's one data point for confusion. Then let us correct the documentation and educate the users and developers instead of cutting them off from a resource a number appear to find extremely useful. I could go over the posts on debian-project and debian-devel with a fine toothed comb and post a list of all the messages there which evince the confusion, including several from users who were very worried about removing non-free from Debian. See above. Stephen
Re: Clarifications
On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote: There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me clarify a few points: 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution. This bears repeating. This GR will have NO EFFECT on the distribution. I disagree. It will have effect on the CD distribution. It will have an effect on the http/ftp/rsync distribution. 6. This proposal is made on my own accord and does not represent the interests of any other party. I advance it because I believe it is the best for Debian. A large problem with this proposal is the form and reason for it. The reason seems to be completely political. There are no technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justification and a solid reason to make such a change. The creators apparently felt there was reason for non-free to exist. Non-free is clearly beneficial to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it. Concern should be raised as to the reasons for this political statement. What is the external reason for this change? Have users been confused as to the meaning of 'non-free'? Or have they been confused with regard to what Debian is and stands for? Or is it bad press that Debian is being hypocritical with it's ideals? It is unlikely that any of these are the case. If 'bad press' is indeed the reason then perhaps Debian is not about developers and users and is instead about politicians and mud slinging. Developers know what Debian is, and what it stands for. Users understand Debian's goals and policies. Press in general should be ignored unless there is some technical merit to it. Let us not cause greater confusion and work in order to make a statement about what we are, for we are already known and understood. 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software. This appears against the ideals that are apparently desired and makes for confusion. Such a split would be worse than a complete break. Stephen
Re: Clarifications
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote: On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote: There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me clarify a few points: 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution. This bears repeating. This GR will have NO EFFECT on the distribution. I disagree. It will have effect on the CD distribution. It will have an effect on the http/ftp/rsync distribution. Gah, okay, this is a stupid reply but I felt the mistake warrented it. I intended to say 'It will NOT have effect on the CD distribution.' My apologies. 6. This proposal is made on my own accord and does not represent the interests of any other party. I advance it because I believe it is the best for Debian. A large problem with this proposal is the form and reason for it. The reason seems to be completely political. There are no technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justification and a solid reason to make such a change. The creators apparently felt there was reason for non-free to exist. Non-free is clearly beneficial to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it. 'packaged the items which clearly were packaged.' may be better phrasing and alliviate some possible confusion. Concern should be raised as to the reasons for this political statement. What is the external reason for this change? Have users been confused as to the meaning of 'non-free'? Or have they been confused with regard to what Debian is and stands for? Or is it bad press that Debian is being hypocritical with it's ideals? It is unlikely that any of these are the case. If 'bad press' is indeed the reason then perhaps Debian is not about developers and users and is instead about politicians and mud slinging. Okay, the 'mud slinging' comment may have been best kept in my head. Please do not let it detract from point I am driving to drive at here. Developers know what Debian is, and what it stands for. Users understand Debian's goals and policies. Press in general should be ignored unless there is some technical merit to it. Let us not cause greater confusion and work in order to make a statement about what we are, for we are already known and understood. 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software. This appears against the ideals that are apparently desired and makes for confusion. Such a split would be worse than a complete break. My apologies for replying to myself but I felt the obvious mistake at the top needed correcting and decided I might as well fine tune some of the other bits so as to make this not completely a one-liner. Again, my apologies. Stephen
