Re: Question for Planet Admins: What Should I do if another Developer Removes my Blog
Greetings! I'm a planet admin although, as you suggest, I think this is outside of the area of documented policy. > Imagine that I get a note from a random developer saying they have > removed my blog from planet. I understand what they are saying enough > to believe it is not vandalism; they honestly believe I did something > wrong. I can't understand from their message how they hope I'd fix it. > > I cannot engage with them in what I think is a timely manner. > > They copied the planet admins who have not gotten involved in the > conversation. > > What should I do? The problems caused by a revert war are greater than the threat of a person not being on planet for a short period of time. As a result, I think it's best not to start a "war" by reverting a change without first understanding or attempting to address the underlying problem or getting feedback from the planet admins that the problem that caused removal in the first place can be ignored. As a result, I think the preferred approach would be your (2): > 2) Ask the planet admins to respond to the situation and either help > me understand the problem or add my blog back. If somebody removes a feed from planet because they think it is on the wrong side of appropriate behavior within Debian, the appropriate first step is to discuss it with the parties involved. I think it's part of the planet admins' job to mediate this conversation. If consensus on an outcome cannot be reached this way, the conversation will likely need to move a mailing list and/or leadership within the project. I'd be happy to document this on the Planet wiki page. I understand that this approach gives everyone with access to the repository on salsa the power to temporary silence anyone else. I think that the benefits of this level of openness (documented in the list of actions Joerg shared) are high enough that they outweigh he risks this introduces. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill https://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
> > I've added everyone's suggestions because I think they were good, here's > > the updated section on a subpage: > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian/ProposedChanges > > > > If I get two +1's I'll go ahead and change it. > > +1 > > Cheers, Phil. > > P.S. with the caveat that I'd prefer "contact" to "reach out to", > but that's probably just me showing my age, or some such. I like these changes. Thanks for doing this. Later, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill https://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
Re: mjg59's blog on planet.d.o
quote who=Jakub Wilk date=Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:19:12AM +0100 AFAIK Matthew Garrett hasn't been active and directly involved participant in the Debian development community for years. What is the reason for keeping his blog on planet.d.o? I remember that this was talked about, with Matthew, some years ago. At the time, a least one person argued that they *wanted* Matthew's posts on Planet because his work was directly impacting Debian in a number of way -- and because he has a long history of working and contributing to our community. My memory is that Matthew himself started out leaning toward leaving but was talked into staying. Given his past contributions and strongly maintained social connections, I certainly think of Matthew of a Debian community member. And given the relevance of his work and blog/content to the project, I'm not going to suggest removing him. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill m...@debian.org http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planet policy?
The people who like my blog can add it to their feed readers directly. I believe I've followed the rules for PD, but there's no point I believe you've followed the rules as well. As you mentioned on your blog, planet is for active participants in Debian, not for posts about Debian only. The rules have been pretty clearly described here: http://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian I've gone back and made it more explicit just in case. I should probably link that page from planet.debian.org itself. Later, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Derivatives Round Table at Debconf7
[ I posted a variant of this message onto my blog a few days ago. I thought I would throw it out here as well. Apologies for people that see it twice. ] At DebConf7 in Edinburgh, I'm going to moderate a panel on Debian derivatives. At DebConf5 I put on a similar sort of panel. Here's the description I submitted: The Debian-Derivers round-table will bring together representatives of organizations involved in producing Debian derived distributions to discuss the political, organizational, and social barriers to collaboration with Debian and with each other. The idea is to bring together a representative group of folks from our derivative community -- groups like Ubuntu, Linspire, Knoppix, LinEx, Maemo, etc. etc. -- and provide a space where they can describe their successful and unsuccessful experiences working with Debian and with each other. On the other side, it will give Debian developers a chance to ask questions of the group, both individually and as a whole. My first step, of course, is to build that panel. If you have worked on or represent a Debian derivative and think you will be at DebConf, you may have a spot on my panel. Give me an response and lets talk. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Debian Auditor/Accountant
quote who=Anthony Towns date=Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:32:00AM +1000 On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:14:18PM -0500, Michael Schultheiss wrote: According to http://www.debian.org/intro/organization, Mako is the Debian Accountant: Accountant -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] member Benj. Mako Hill I'm not sure what he's done though. He's assisted with donations and such in the past; I don't think he's had a lot of time for it for a while now, but not sure. Kalle Kivimaa is the Debian auditor, who's in theory trying to keep track of what assets are available for Debian across various organisations, see [0]. I think that the Debian Auditor role has replaced the accountant role (which was a few years old and never really got off the ground in a major way). In any case, the account role hasn't recieved anything other than spam in a very long time. If nobody objects, I'm happy to make that change the information (to remove the accountant role) from the Debian organization page and to have the alias removed as well. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debconf7 out of June
quote who=Miguel Gea Milvaques date=Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:08:04AM +0200 According to the minutes from the meeting on 2006-09-09 [1], it seems that the candidate dates for Debconf7 lie in the middle of June. For some of us, this is a problem, as June is probably one of the most problematic months for going for many people, especially for those who are studying or have exams at university. It would be nice if the people who has to reach a decision took that into account, and tried to moved the Debconf7 out of June. You'll find that there are no good times for everybody. There will be DDs with University exams from the first week of May through mid-July at least. Last year, the May dates for DC6 landed squarely during my universities exam week -- (not to mention a few other important events I had going on). Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500 Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary, would set an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not specifically permit that. I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the powers of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong procedure. I am no longer willing to step in and break filibusters. I think this is the correct decision. The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. It seems like there are only a few options. A fixed time-limit (something large but not too large, perhaps a couple months) seems like the natural solution. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. It's only a veto if a malicious group does this *indefinitely* and intentionally and I haven't seen evidence that this is happening or is about to happen. Let me know if I've missed something. This is a problem but it's one we've known about for a long time so I don't really see things as being quite as urgent as you seem to. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: policy for planet.debian.org
quote who=Andreas Barth date=Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:32:28PM +0200 Hi Mako, can you please define a policy whether non-personal blogs should be on planet.debian.org or not? Sure. I'll write something up on wiki.debian.org. I've put a first very quick bit up already and folks are welcome to edit or add: http://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian Just for context, what blogs in particular, and/or classes of non-personal blogs, are you worried about? Feel free to reply to me off list. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: policy for planet.debian.org
quote who=MJ Ray date=Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:38:28PM +0100 I think planet.d.o should include any debian-related blogs onto it (including their non-debian content, if the author wants), but exclude people/things that spam it with repeat posts or over-long material like entire press releases. I'd let non-English posts on, as long as they're UTF-8 or ASCII (so entities) - not all debian helpers enjoy writing English. We have multiple Debian planets in other languages. I think we should create a common template that allows people to quickly switch between different planets in different languages. I do like the idea of single-language feeds by default. There should be warnings for offences, with commenting-out and an offer to reinstate when the problem's fixed if needed. That is the current case. The only posts I have hiden or commented out without explicitly contacting the poster are posts who who have accidentally flooded planet. Silent removals should not happen. The only removal should be if a feed contains no debian-relevant content. In fact, if a person is actively involved in Debian, I would still be alright with the feed had little or no Debian related content. Putting a human face on a co-worker is, IMHO, related to Debian working well. Removals happen for repeatedly flooding planet and should be reversed when someone can demonstrate that the chronic problem has been fixed. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DebianTimes launched
quote who=Joey Hess date=Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:22:26AM -0400
Daniel Baumann wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
OH YEAH!
seconded++
Ack, and when there are anyway changes on the way.. joeyh, how about
moving your upstream-planet[0] to something as
upstream.planet.debian.org (and DebianTimes/DWN to
{groups,teams,press,$whatever}.planet.d.o or similar)?
[0]
http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/tmp/upstream.planet.debian.org/^whttp://updo.kitenet.net/
Actually it's at updo.debian.net. I could move it again if someone makes
upstream.planet.debian.org CNAME to there..
I'd be happy to put it at planet.debian.org/upstream. Would that be
sane? We could be a planet.debian.org/news as well and perhaps even
add Debian related news feeds from other non-Debian news sources.
That might be a nice compromise.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.cc/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:05:38PM -0500 At last count, the following had sconded the previous draft, I hope there is no problem with the changes made with this version. I have no problem with these changes. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
quote who=Ian Jackson date=Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 03:53:19PM +0100 I agree with the sense and letter but have a few factual, grammar and other minor corrections, which I'd like to formally propose as amendments. I'd appreciate it if you'd accept them. I propose each change as a separate amendment so you may accept some or all of them; they're numbered 1 to 14, below. I hereby also second the proposed resolution as is, even if you don't accept my amendments. I'll also second the resolution as is. I also support Ian's suggestions although I don't care too much about most of the grammar, spelling, or comma changes. Several of the other changes seem to be useful clarifications. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Don Armstrong date=Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 12:49:08PM -0700 AMs, the DAM and other people in the project are more hesitant to grant developership to people with non-standard forms of contributions. Sometimes, it's simply harder to test for these because there aren't templates or even qualified AMs! Sure; it's basically a case of no one having yet figured out exactly how to do it. Great. That's somewhere to start. :) I don't think there's any way to make that easier until we have more people who fit into those positions wanting to become DDs. It's a bit more complex than that. You, for example, were active on -legal and in a few other non-technical ways but went through the package maintains NM route because you had technical abilities and because it seemed more straight forward and you didn't have to fight for your right to become a DD via non-traditional criteria. You see this happening a lot. The first few applicants going through the process in a new role will always take a bit longer, but they'll be helping develop the process too, so I'd hope that they'd be reasonably accepting of that. It is clear that our current NM process is prohibitive long for many potential contributors (we've had good contributors give or not bother). How many more of our potential pool do we lose by stretching it out a bit longer and asking people to argue for the importance of their contributions from a position of no power within the project? Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 03:07:41PM -0500 (1) We as a project (and an NM project) are hesitant to give these people developership since it means they can upload to the project which introduces a set of potential risks and problems (one more account to compromise, etc). I'm sorry. If we can't trust these people not to abuse upload privileges, then I certainly do not want to see them get a say in deciding how we conduct the project's business. Eiether we trust them, in which case we should induct them in as full members, or we don't, and in that case they do not get to vote. I agree completely. I said, one more account to compromise to highlight the fact that an elevated risk is not necessary connected to a lack of trustworthiness in the person. Why have 2,000 possible upload keys when only 1,000 people intend to ever use theirs -- even if we can trust the people who we have accepted to not abuse their privilege? Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:43:52AM -0500 I'd like to see those who have made long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian enfranchised. That could mean broadening the category of developer through changes to NM or it could also mean another enfranchised category of contributor. That's what I read as the argument at the core of this thread -- but perhaps I was just projecting. I think we need to make them full, undifferentiated, members of the project. Which means going through a process where we know they adhere to our foundation documents, and spend time with a trusted developer (AM) so we have a better idea of who they are, and can have a modicum of trust in that they do not sabotage the project. I agree completely. My only criticism has been with limiting or putting up roadblocks to full undifferentiated membership for people making certain type of contributions. I'm not suggesting a lower bar for PP, trust, identity, etc. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Don Armstrong date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 01:50:50PM -0700 As a final note, the templates are just that, templates. An AM is relatively free to tailor the process to the job that the applicant is actually performing. This is a bit more time consuming for the AM, but it's ideal for applicants who are involved in non-traditional roles in Debian. AMs, the DAM and other people in the project are more hesitant to grant developership to people with non-standard forms of contributions. Sometimes, it's simply harder to test for these because there aren't templates or even qualified AMs! Documentation is relatively common. i18n is a little trickier. I asked around about developership for Debian's lawyer and was told by everyone that it seemed problematic. Don: You were extremely active in Debian-Legal before becoming a developer. Were you tested or evaluated on those contributions? If not, why not? Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Erinn Clark date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:55:09PM -0400 * Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:04:06 15:35 -0400]: quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:32:26PM +0200 Scripsit Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that the fact that the upload keyring is the same as the voting keyring is bad. Contributors are told they can't vote until they learn C compiler flags. Who tells contributors that nonsense? Have you read the NM process templates lately? They are what almost every contributor looking for enfranchisement sees. Do you mean this question? (Actually about ld, but it's the closest one I found that seemed appropriately irrelevant.) I3. What is the -Bsymbolic ld flag, exactly what does it do, and how that differs from library symbol versioning? What problems do -Bsymbolic linking solve? Why is libc6 not compiled with -Bsymbolic? Yes. But it was just an example. I could not correctly answer that question. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:32:26PM +0200 Scripsit Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that the fact that the upload keyring is the same as the voting keyring is bad. Contributors are told they can't vote until they learn C compiler flags. Who tells contributors that nonsense? Have you read the NM process templates lately? They are what almost every contributor looking for enfranchisement sees. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:13:30AM -0500 On 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill spake thusly: quote who=Wouter Verhelst date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:58:57AM +0200 The problem is more one of 'how do we identify those people that aren't a Developer, but that do contribute regularly'. There are a number of ways of doing this although, like NM, it's ultimately a human process that is carried out in the context of guidelines. Ubuntu has separate categories for member and maintainer (only the latter can upload although they are equal in all other respects) and their process involves testimonial, demonstrated work over a long period of time, and review by an elected board. Something similar could work in Debian. Ubuntu also gives limited rights to its so called members. Can members throw out the benevolent dictator for life? fire all the members on the committees? overrule the peoject leader? Or any delegate? Propose and with enough numbers, change the very articles of incorporation or other foundation documents? Ubuntu members get to vote on the members of the community council, most similar to the Debian project leader. All members get equal votes in this regard. Clearly, the role of Mark Shuttleworth is an undemocratic one in Ubuntu and it's my least favorite things about the project governance. I would not suggest Debian adopt such a model and I have publicly expressed uneasiness with it. I'd be happy to follow the ubuntu model -- gice every /. reader full rights, but whittle down their powers so all they can really do is say they are members, and vote on some inconsequential things. But that's not what happens in Ubuntu. The total rights of Ubuntu members may be less than the non-technical rights of Debian developers' but the maintainers in Ubuntu have *zero* extra power over the non-technical ones when it comes to non-technical issues or project leadership. I'm saying that non-technical contributions to Debian should be recognized with enfranchisement equal to technical contributors when it comes to non-technical issues. The system could still require a key signed by another Debian developer. The identity part of NM is not the most difficult part for many and is easily overcome even by non-developers. Err, all that means is that we have a weak trust in the identity of the people, but does nothing to address commitment, responsibility, and trust in that person, or any idea if they adhere to the foundation principles of the project. I've said in other posts that I want to recognized significant and sustained contributions. Those contributions should be at the same level for technical and non-technical contributors but we should be able to recognize contributions of both types. The solution is not to dilute the franchise, the solution is rather to induct all trustworthy significant contributors commited to the project as full members. It has never been about work -- else upstream authors doing all the heavy lifting should be the ones voting. It is about commitment, responsibility, and trust. That's precisely what I was suggesting. Perhaps we're not in disagreement at all. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM -0700 And maybe I'm too heavily steeped in Debian culture to take an objective view, but I don't see any reason why translators, documentation writers, artists, et al. should look at the term developer and conclude it's not for them. First, none of these groups usually think of the work that they do as development. That's just not he way the word is used. But that'a semantic argument. The larger reason that this is a problem is because: (1) We as a project (and an NM project) are hesitant to give these people developership since it means they can upload to the project which introduces a set of potential risks and problems (one more account to compromise, etc). (2) Our NM process is highly optimized and documented for testing technical knowledge and package maintenance. Documentation is maybe an exception. A pure advocacy NM would run into trouble. If we can address those two issues, I think my issues with the terminology will go away. Developing an operating system is what we *all* do; not just packagers or maintainers, but also documentation writers, bug submitters, buildd maintainers, QA folks, translators, and everyone else. The term isn't software developer or programmer, it's simply developer, which I think encapsulates the concept of what Debian is, and I wouldn't like to lose that. I'd rather see us do a better job of communicating this principle to prospective developers instead. Fair enough. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:36:58PM +0200 How is making long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian _not_ engaging in development? If you think that Debian's long-time pro-bono legal counsel is engaging in development, I think we're just getting bogged down in semantics. I'm saying we should be able to take significant and sustained non-technical contributions. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:23:35AM -0500 The way I see it, Debian produces an modular OS. the modularity of the product is, by and large[0], packages. .. snip .. [0]. There are people who contribute to Debian other than as package maintainers, but they do have the same rights of uploading as anyone else. As other have pointed out, many package maintainers can't vote either. I think that the fact that the upload keyring is the same as the voting keyring is bad. Contributors are told they can't vote until they learn C compiler flags. People who don't upload anymore keep their privileges in order to vote. Branden had an interesting idea of fixing the second big by allowing people to simply opt-out of upload privileges through db.debian.org. Debian has a *very* poor recognizing non-packaging contributions to the community with enfranchisement of any sort. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Wouter Verhelst date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:58:57AM +0200 The problem is more one of 'how do we identify those people that aren't a Developer, but that do contribute regularly'. There are a number of ways of doing this although, like NM, it's ultimately a human process that is carried out in the context of guidelines. Ubuntu has separate categories for member and maintainer (only the latter can upload although they are equal in all other respects) and their process involves testimonial, demonstrated work over a long period of time, and review by an elected board. Something similar could work in Debian. Since Debian votes are conducted through GPG-signed mails and regular contributors aren't part of the Debian web of trust, this is more than a convenience issue. Note that Debian Developers without an active key in the keyring can't vote, either. The system could still require a key signed by another Debian developer. The identity part of NM is not the most difficult part for many and is easily overcome even by non-developers. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:15:15AM -0700 Most developers seem to agree that there are bugs in our process for integrating new members into the project, but that's not the same as saying that non-DDs should be allowed to vote Clearly not. voting rights are one of the few privileges that are reserved only for developers, and arguably the most important. It's argueably the most important right that is reserved for developers but it does not necessary stand to reason that it should be reserved only for those who engage in development. I'd like to see those who have made long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian enfranchised. That could mean broadening the category of developer through changes to NM or it could also mean another enfranchised category of contributor. That's what I read as the argument at the core of this thread -- but perhaps I was just projecting. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Setting up i18n.debian.org?
quote who=Jaldhar H. Vyas date=Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:59:59AM -0500 I was also informed of pootle (http://translate.sourceforge.net/) which is another free option. My sense is that pootle is a bit more advanced in terms of features and such. I'd love to see something like this set up. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
quote who=Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader date=Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:37:47PM -0500 Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference[1] in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January. I'll be there as well and will be happy to represent and communicate Debian's questions and comments as well. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: spi-trademark status, was: Why Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?
quote who=MJ Ray date=Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 12:56:10AM +0100 So, it looks to me like help is most needed with educating about the debian trademark, drafting the more general trademark policy and summarising to SPI's board and members. Corrections welcome. Yes. Help would be welcome in all of these areas. Of course, this need not be a complete listl; we're not necessarily going to say no to other helpful efforts as well. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Why Debian Common Core Alliance? Why not Debian?
quote who=Michael Meskes date=Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:20:32PM +0200 Are you saying that it is better and easier to create a fork than work on improving Debian? The reality of the situation is that there are at least 129 distributions derived form Debian and the number is going to grow. Some of those forks can be rolled back into the fold with a little effort but for political, social, personal, and technical reasons, one Debian *will* not serve everybody. One size doesn't fit all. CDDs are one *great* way to solve this problem but it's worth pointing out that on a certain level, they also often end up as forks. Institutional separate of many types projects also can fulfill a useful role. I agree with Anthony points out. Forks *can* improve Debian. It should be our goal and the goals of derivers to avoid forks where it's possible and beneficial and to mitigate their negative effects so that we *all* benefit when it's not. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA
quote who=Peter Vandenabeele date=Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:07:07PM +0200 On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:38:38PM +0200, Peter Vandenabeele wrote: So a naming in the sense of Debian Commercial Support Association or something along those lines would seem to make it clearer to me ... or just stick to the original DCC as Debian Commercial Consortium. My problem with this name is that sounds primarily descriptive and implies exclusivity to me. Let's say that Ubuntu, Guadlinex and another distro want to create a new association for giving back to Debian. Wouldn't that also be a Debian Commercial Consortium? Why does Progeny and Co. get first dibs on the name? The DCC has a specific idea of what giving back to Debian in a commercially viable way means but it is by no means the only one and shouldn't encourage names that might lead people to believe that it is. I think that any license to use the Debian trademark should be not imply exclusivity. This is why SLX Debian Labs is such a better name than than Scandinavian Debian Labs or even Debian Foundation Norway (both ideas that were tossed around at one point). Debian Labs implies that someone works with Debian but are does not necessarily represent the entire project. Either of the other names above would also have implied that they were *the* lab for Norway or Scandinavia. In fact, we'd love to have *lots* of labs and no lab's name should imply otherwise. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
quote who=MJ Ray date=Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 09:32:44AM +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suggestion would be that the Debian trademark should be restricted to novel names and not used in descriptive terms. Microsoft Debian ought to be permitted - Debian T-shirts should not. Does the Debian trademark cover clothing as a field of use? The Debian mark is limited to computer programs and related services. In the Linux world this allows for things like Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_(washing_powder) The reasons this is OK is because the washing powder company was apparently not making a reference to or trying to capitalize off the goodwill created the Linux mark in order to sell more Washing power. The fact that it's two different groups is clear and nobody would be confused that the the two were the same. So, if someone created a clothing line called Debian, that would be fine. However, if those shirts involved nothing but swirls, a familiar font, and was targetted toward geeks in the free software community, it might not be. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Core Consortium
quote who=Jonathan Carter date=Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:29:05AM +0200 Benj. Mako Hill wrote: Greg Pomerantz tells me that guys still haven't talked yet about the DCC and the Debian mark. What happened about this? I'm not involved in any way, but I'm quite interested. AFAIK, Greg Pomerantz (SPI's lawyer) and Ian talked on the phone yesterday. I'm still waiting to hear back from Greg in capacity as SPI board member (although he did give me a brief summary). Since this decision *should* be informed (or take into account) a stated trademark policy, Greg and I hacked on a rough outline of a proposal in person Friday and will probably throw something out to the trademark list this week. In terms of DCC, that will be up the DPL and the SPI board who will, conveniently enough, be meeting tomorrow IIRC. David, can we get something on the agenda for this? I do not have a proposal but I would like to sound folks out and, if possible, have Greg there as well. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks
quote who=Bruce Perens date=Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:34:41AM -0700 This latest round was provoked by the DCC announcement. I participated in the DCCA meeting yesterday evening. The organization has agreed to call themselves the Debian Common Core Association in order to make it more clear that they aren't in control of Debian. That doesn't really seem all that more clear to me. Perhaps you can explain why you think it would be. If other changes are required, they will be cooperative. That's good to hear. It's important to note that despite the noise and heated words on the lists, everyone involved int he project has been very flexible and accommodating so far. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
quote who=MJ Ray date=Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:36:13AM +0100 There is a desirable position more liberal than the current almost-no- -commercial-use do you agree? I think we should be as permissive as we can be and as close the spirit of sharing and reuse in free software while still keeping our users from being confused and while operating within the realm of trademark law -- a realm that the DFSG was never designed to address. I think this is only one area the current policy needs to be improved. I am disappointed that a general trademark policy based on the DFSG is not being studied, but any clearer terms would be welcome. The stated goal of the trademark committee was to come up a policy that was as permissive as possible (in the DFSG sense) while still operating within what is required by trademark law. I thought the stated goal was to elaborate the existing policy or develop a new open use trademark policy. If the open use policy is not possible, doesn't that leave only elaborate? The last policy was written by Bruce very quickly for a mailing list. It's served us reasonably well I suppose so I think it's worth looking at but I've never been an advocate on putting that as the place to start except to look at what we don't like when we discuss a new policy. :) Unlike copyright, failing to enforce or taking a completely permissive attitude toward a trademark will actually lead you to lose it. We have many users of the debian name running around, some told to the project. The previous DPL stated the present trademark policy is never enforced properly[1] and also kept a list of known violations. Have we lost it yet or how much longer before we lose it? We've followed up on a number of violations in the last years and, under legal council, decided that some were not infringing and let them be. Of the ones we've followed up, many have been fixed and at least one trademark license has been drafted (although that wasn't in response to a violation). That may be fine with some in the project but my sense from reading this thread and others is that most people in the project like having Debian refer to stuff made by the Debian project and not to anything by anybody. Is that incompatible with a trademark licence following DFSG? (It's not current practice, anyway.) I don't know. I assumed (perhaps inaccurately) that you were implying it wasn't in the message I replied to. When and where will spi-trademark report next? There are periodic reports on trademark related issues to spi-private, spi-general and (more frequently) spi-board. Cool. What's the period? I've looked back over 2005 for private and general and didn't spot one. This year has been quieter than the last two years. It may be that most of this has been on spi-trademark and spi-board (both closed except or list members) in which case a report of the kind you are advocating is certainly in order. There was, at least at first, a representative of Debian on the SPI trademark committee. I'd have to look at the resolution to find out what that was. I was the SPI Board representative. When and where will spi-trademark report next? This hasn't been discussed this with Greg, the SPI board, or the rest of the committee. Let's talk on SPI trademark and find out how we can get something (a report, a new agenda, etc) ASAP. If you're willing to help, it will be sooner. I suspect any report would first be sent to the SPI Board and the DPL and then to both the spi-general and to this list. Help is certainly desired. If you help, it will be sooner. :) Help how? By joining the email list? Please ask spi-trademark-owner, then. I think there may be a problem with mailman, as I received two confirmation request emails to my most recent subscribe request. Seems like a good start. I'll look into it. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
Ian, Greg Pomerantz tells me that guys still haven't talked yet about the DCC and the Debian mark. I'll contact you off list with this phone/etc since I don't have yours. I'd personally really like to get you guys on the same page (or see what issues remained) before we tear this apart on the lists and before you guys proceed much farther. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
quote who=MJ Ray date=Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:17AM +0100 In general, I'm disappointed to see so little how do we harness this new effort? and so much how do we stop them? I don't think anyone here is trying to *stop* the effort. In fact, I don't believe people have said much critical about the plans for the group at all. I'll be among the first to wish them best of luck. :) Be careful not to confuse an active effort to stop the DCC with genuine concern that the group could be named in such a way that it might, either intentionally or accidentally, lead unfamiliar folks into believing that the project was connected to, controlled by, responsible to, or a product of the Debian project when it wasn't. I believe that the Debian trademark is a good thing because it lets our users rest assured that if it's called Debian, it is a product of the Debian project. That fact means a lot in terms of the DFSG, technical and non-technical policies, stability, and lot more. I think that's worth protecting if we can do it in a way that doesn't mean being a bully and abusing trademark law in the way it often is by big companies. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
quote who=MJ Ray date=Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:54:14AM +0100 Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] a group of us decided a number of years ago to keep consumers (and developers) from being confused by ensuring that Debian referred only to our project and to our products. [...] There are alternatives that some people support (e.g., allowing anyone to call anything Debian) but we've decided not to pursue that path at the moment. Thank you for the news that no other paths are being pursued. M.J., since the trademark committee was created, you are the *only* Debian developer who has actively argued for giving up the mark and making Debian a generic. I'm sure other people would support it but I just don't see support for the complete alternative that you have advocated in the past. I am disappointed that a general trademark policy based on the DFSG is not being studied, but any clearer terms would be welcome. The stated goal of the trademark committee was to come up a policy that was as permissive as possible (in the DFSG sense) while still operating within what is required by trademark law. Unlike copyright, failing to enforce or taking a completely permissive attitude toward a trademark will actually lead you to lose it. That may be fine with some in the project but my sense from reading this thread and others is that most people in the project like having Debian refer to stuff made by the Debian project and not to anything by anybody. Does this mean that spi-trademark is now elaborating the existing policy, rather than drafting a new one? No. It's still a goal to draft a policy. The trademark committee has been distracted from writing a policy by a very long list of international disputes, trademark licenses, international registration and other actions I'm not remembered. When and where will spi-trademark report next? There are periodic reports on trademark related issues to spi-private, spi-general and (more frequently) spi-board. Will it contribute to the 2005 SPI Annual Report? It's not a bad idea. I was actively traveling when the report was annual drafted and didn't think of it. It is probably too late to get into the most recently release but an update would be good. Can you forecast when it will present a policy to spi-board? Help is certainly desired. If you help, it will be sooner. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Screenshots
quote who=Nico Golde date=Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:11:54PM +0200 Hello Andrew, * Andrew Karppinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-04 21:47]: Why are there are no screen shots on the Debian site? I think some screen shots would help. People can make a visual connection to what it could look like. It may generate more interest in the project. I tried the search feature and it was disabled on the site. Because debian isn't a desktop system. Really? I use Debian on *my* desktop. There are a number of websites that have already made many screenshots of Sarge's installer and the default status of some of the popular desktop environments (KDE, GNOME, etc). I don't see any reason why shouldn't, at the least, link to a variety of these -- of course, with Gunnar's disclaimer that these are only one version of any number of possible desktops that Debian can offer. People like the pretty pictures, it's not difficult for us to do, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
鹤立鸡群
更多more... 免费电影，音乐， 搞笑图片free movie,funny pictures ,music..
Re: Possible violation of the Debian trademark
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 03:51:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:52:50PM +0200, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: I think neither rendition of the site that I saw was likely to make someone think that they were buying from Debian. It would be nice to have a clearer explanation of the relationship and some more links back, though. I took a quick look at the site and I tend to agree with you. In either case, it seems worth running by our lawyer working on trademark issues and seeing where this goes from there. Uh, have you _talked_ to the guy running the website yet? Do we really prefer talking to our lawyers than our users? If mark holders don't protect their mark from certain types of use, they risk losing their mark. I'd simply like to know whether this is one of those cases because if it isn't, I'd rather not harass this guy at all. :) That said, your point is well taken. I'll send an email to the guy who runs the site now. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible violation of the Debian trademark
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:24:37AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-04-17 10:16:22 +0100 Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:16:02PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anyway, do you really want to persecute businesses who promote Debian to their customers? What we want to avoid is having people use the Debian mark to capitalize off the goodwill created by the Debian project to sell their own service, support, servers, etc. and to reflect poorly upon the project when they screw up. Let's be clear on this: promoting one's own services as Debian is impersonation/passing-off or whatever and seems clearly illegal regardless of the trademark. Promoting services of/for installation of Debian systems is not. Absolutely. What's not always clear is where promoting a Debian *based* service or product ends and where promoting one's service *as* Debian begin. This probably wouldn't be common enough to worry about except that there's often a lot to gain from having people confused in this way. A Debian-desktop domain name seems like it might incorrectly lead people to this association. I think neither rendition of the site that I saw was likely to make someone think that they were buying from Debian. It would be nice to have a clearer explanation of the relationship and some more links back, though. I took a quick look at the site and I tend to agree with you. In either case, it seems worth running by our lawyer working on trademark issues and seeing where this goes from there. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible violation of the Debian trademark
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:16:02PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anyway, do you really want to persecute businesses who promote Debian to their customers? What we want to avoid is having people use the Debian mark to capitalize off the goodwill created by the Debian project to sell their own service, support, servers, etc. and to reflect poorly upon the project when they screw up. A Debian-desktop domain name seems like it might incorrectly lead people to this association. I have not checked the site out in any detail but as long as the owner is being cooperative, I'm sure we can work something out. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Some Comments on Sexism in #debian
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:18:48PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 02:44:31PM +0100, Amaya wrote: - On a talk at Madrid, Miguel de Icaza who is a close friend of mine BTW, used female secretaries as examples of clueless users. Well, that's probably because that's empirically proven to be correct. 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. If we instead try to imagine the power-developer as a grandmother we stand a better a chance of creating an environment that will make this possible and, more importantly, we have a better chance of keeping the power-developers grandmother(s) in our midst active and interested. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:43:59PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: I'd take a bullet for my wife, my mother, my sisters, but never for a feminist. Just in case there is a misunderstanding here, this is what dict-wn has to say about feminism: feminist adj : of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women; If there's no misunderstanding, I apologize for feeding the trolls. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Strawpoll on proper usage of @debian.org email address
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:47:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:19:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: Could everbody interested please fill out that small query below and send the answers to me? Thanks a lot to everybody who participated. I recieved around a hundred submission, which is a significant part of the Debian developers at least numerically. Thanks Michael for your hard work in putting this together; it clearly took a good deal of time. I agree with Martin, adding this to the developers reference sounds like a good way to start. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpZoEPYR9HJl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: font
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 10:36:09AM +0100, Paz wrote: just a simple question but I cant find it anywhere, I got debian installed at home and wanna edit the debian logo for self use but I would like to know wich font the debian word is in in the official debian logo. I believe all the info you need is here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2003/debian-www-200308/msg00261.html Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpjSlCv3vs7d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the DPL (a 6-month retrospective)
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:28:47PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: * Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-11-04 11:54]: - I talked to Bradley Kuhn to discuss the relationship of Debian and the FSF. I'm interested to know what came out of this, if it is not private or sensible. Bradley and I met for lunch and had a nice conversation. FWIW, I just arrived in Boston today and will be meeting with folks from the FSF in Boston and New York on behalf of Debian and discussing many of the things that Martin mentioned in his last email including the GFDL. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Re: Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:35:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-10-06 20:53:56 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: trademark law doesn't allow us the same latitude for selective enforcement that copyright law does Can you be more specific, please? I was recently challenged about this and cannot point at why this would be. Because a generic term cannot be trademarked. You can trademark Coke but you can't trademark Cola. Err, coke is a generic term too. I think Coca-Cola is the trademark you're thinking of. This is getting madly off-topic for this list but both Coca-Cola *and* Coke (and Vanilla Coke and Diet Coke and Cherry Coke and Coke Classic and lots, lots more) are registered many times (for many different use in many different areas ) by the Coca-Cola corporation. You can do search at http://www.uspto.gov to get an idea. Perhaps there is a point worth making here though. A trademark is connected to a particular type of goods which means that while Coke may be a trademark as it pertains to beverages, this doesn't necessary interfere with the words generic meaning in the area of power tools or narcotics (assuming for a moment that you could get a trademark for your brand of cocaine. Debian's trademark is only for Computer Utility and Operating System Software which, AIUI, means we probably can't control other groups ability to sell Debian soap or beverages. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpW5wKw87Y24.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:58:22PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: IANAL, but I believe that according to US law there are limits on who non-profits can give money to: if the lab is not a non-profit corporation, SPI could not (in my understanding) give money to the lab. OTOH, SPI could surely purchase services? Could somebody with a better understanding of the law help here? I can try. SPI is a 501(c)(3) in the United States. This means that donations from within the US are tax deductible. SPI doesn't pay taxes and you can deduct your donation to SPI from your taxes according to a set of rules the government lays out. You're right is assuming that this tax exempt status introduces some restrictions on how we can spend money. At Debconf3 I gave the follow example: Developer X creates a trivial MP3 sorting script and throws it into a Alioth project. She then registers it as an SPI member project and donates USD 50K to SPI (marked for her project). She writes 50K off her taxes. She then has SPI buy her a car or a new computer or send her a pile of cash she uses to throw a coke orgy or something -- all tax free. The major rule of thumb is that the members of the organization can't benefit financially from the organizations decisions. Now, if SPI wants to hire a consulting organization that's fine. If we hire one unconnected to any SPI member there's no room for a problem. If we hire one that is owned by a member, we need to be able to prove that she is charging my normal rates and that those rates are competitive, and such. Additionally, 503(c)(3)'s can't spend money directly on politics. This means we can't spend money lobbying congressmen and women or endorsing candidates or donate to their campaigns. It's a little bit of a fuzzy line though because we can *educate* people on a set of issues and, AIUI, on how politicians stand in regards to an issue. You're correct in your description. We can hire HP to do work for us but we can't provide a way for HP to invest in itself tax-free. It can sometimes be a fine line. Does that clarify things at all (or at least clarify that things are a little bit unclear)? :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpCDxVtc5leD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
a more competitive position for a company in regards to Debian work. We make part of the trademark license agreement a regular review of their work in regards to published criteria and we keep the right to revoke the use of the mark. There is a lot of good points that have come out of this thread already. I welcome more criticism and critique. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpDvRM2HzJUc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:43:18PM -0700, Derek Neighbors wrote: Is the only currently discussed benefit use of the Debian trademark? If so, do you want to consider other benefits? Some thoughts that come to mind would be allowing them some greater say in project issues. However, personally I would hate to see that. Luckily for you, I don't see anyway that our Constitution would allow for this sort of influence in any sort of codified fashion. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpzIeSAVDYqv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:58:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing. True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- AIUI, in .au the purposes have to cover everything that the organisation does, though. You could set up a charitable group that educates people on how to use Debian, but that's all it can do. Or you could setup a group to help the disabled by setting up Debian systems, but again, that's all it could do. Which is nice and all, but not really very exciting. What about organizations that have a large set of vague goals like SPI?[1] It seems to me like we could do a whole hell of a lot with in those guidelines. Regards, Mako [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/goals -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpEllS3Eu3Y4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Sorry to be replying to this so late but the part of this thread that is living on drew me back into this where I realized I had not answered. On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:21:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I am curious about why? You state you don't want to see it, but don't give any supporting argument. I myself am always very suspicious as to the motive of for profit companies appearing to leverage Free Software projects. Even for profit companies is a bit of a huge class of things to be upset with. Most of them are just trying to earn some profit to live from. Maybe for-dividend companies contain nearly all of the ones we should worry about? Then again, excluding them is likely to involve friendly fire on our allies. I'm not upset at for profit companies (I work for them and sometimes think about starting one or two). In speaking of non-profits, I was thinking more in line the line of some sort of legal charitable organization status that, at least in the US, does not restrict the ability to charge money and make a profit on a given transaction but does restrict dividends and some of the other ways that money can be spent. This use of non-profit is closer to NGO in many situations. I think this was just confusion about terminology. The contract/agreement that the entity using the Debian Labs name signs or agrees to, should likely be a legal document drafted by lawyers. Why would Debian want to increase the sums given to lawyers? It should be drafted as simply as possible by people concerned and then secured by lawyers under advice. SPI has access to pro-bono legal advice from some very good law firms including one lawyer working specifically on trademark issues. Of course, you are correct in saying we should list our goals and terms as well as we can first. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpCiAc4GjvVm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:07:14PM -0400, Simon Law wrote: On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:25:18PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: Since there are already people working on this, I think that the most constructive thing will be to follow up on the DPL's announcement in regards to the trademark committee and to get involved in the efforts already underway. I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly. Are you suggesting that I suspend this proposal until a more definitive position can be reached by the trademark committees? Yes. This looks like it will overlap with what the committee is doing since we're trying to draft text to replace the current trademark and logo policies. I'm just thinking that if you are proposing this for a GR (is this even necessary?) it might be worth working this into what the trademark ctte's is already putting together. There may be reasons, legal or otherwise, to avoid the language you've proposed or there might just be something that's clearer in legalese. Part of the problem with the old trademark and logo policies, as I understand it, is that they are acting as legal documents but are not all written or edited with legal advice. I think that, at the very least, we should run this by our lawyers that are already working on this. We might get an answer we can move on right away. The committee isn't only involved in creating one big monolithic document. Greg has already suggested changes for web site footer (which have been implemented) and helped with some other issues. I have been following Bug#212895 and the discussions on -project and -legal, so I thought things were getting close to decided. I think this puts you in a good position to represent this perspective in the SPI trademark committee if you'd like to join. You should sign up if this is something you are interested in working more on. My proposal was intended to foster discussion among general developers and initiate the decision-making process with regards to our Open Use logo. Great. Lets bring this up with the lawyers and see what they say. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpmmsHHH8sor.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debain-Edu and Skolelinux
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:06:21PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: So far, I must say that a big problem is the web pages not being fully translated in English, which makes it quite difficult to show them around here in Italy. It would be difficult already (but acceptable by some people) to show them around in English, but german or norwegian are absolutely a no-no. The post to d-d-a mentioned merging the Skolelinux mailing list and website into the existing Debian infrastructure. Since an English page is a requirement for the Debian website, I imagine that any shortcomings in this regard will be fixed during the migration. The other custom distributions have set up their homes at: http://www.debian.org/devel/customdistroname I imagine it will be in a similarly predictable place. Regards, Mako -- Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp7foVt8MN5G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: trademark committee
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:20:46PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: What I have done is attached a text version of the resolution that SPI passed creating the committee. I totally lied. It's attached here. Regards, Mako -- Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ WHEREAS, SPI is in control of DEBIAN, a registered trademark in the United States, and may in the future come to control registered trademarks for other member projects. Debian, and possibly other SPI supported projects in the future, is in the unusual position of desiring to encourage the open use of its trademark without abandoning the quality control and source designation functions inherent in a trademark. Toward this end, Bruce Perens wrote a trademark policy and posted it to a Debian mailing list in 1998 [1] that has served as SPI's trademark policy up until this point. While this policy successfully captures the spirit of SPI's intentions in regards to its member project's trademarks, it is informal and not well known. In recent months, SPI has been involved in several trademark issues regarding the use of the DEBIAN trademark. While these cases have been resolved, they alert SPI to the need to review, reconsider, and re-articulate its trademark policy with respect to the DEBIAN trademark, and potentially with respect to trademarks held for other member projects, in more formal and legal terms. SPI is in the unique, and perhaps unprecedented, position of drafting a policy that aims to balance the control called for in trademark law with the openness, freedom, and flexibility at the center of many SPI supported projects. RESOLVED THAT, 1. The board shall create a committee (the Trademark Committee) comprised of Chris Rourk (Legal Counsel for SPI), Greg Pomerantz (SPI Contributing Member), Bruce Perens and Benjamin Mako Hill to act as a liaison for the SPI Board of Directors and Martin Michlmayr (Debian Project Leader) or a delegate representing the Debian Project and open to participation by other board members and SPI contributing members, for the purpose of reviewing SPI's trademark policy. If the committee feels that there is sufficient justification for elaboration of the existing policy, the committee will draft a new trademark policy with the DEBIAN mark in mind, and present this policy to the board for consideration. 2. The Trademark Committee shall have the authority to retain Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen Hamilton, on a pro bono basis, solely for advice concerning the foregoing activities. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1998/msg6.html pgp8MmxbjxAO8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Trusted Debian/Adamantix
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 07:54:47PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:50:52AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: First, many people are not aware that Debian is a trademark. I have therefore asked the webmasters to add a trademark statement to the footer of our web site and this was done on 2003-07-19. This probably doesn't do so much to make people aware, but it does provide a vast potential to clutter up the page footers. We should move it all into the legal information page, along with a trademark acknowledgement for Linux and whatever else. This was actually a suggestion made by SPI's lawyer and it was not connected to the Adamantix/Trusted Debian issue except that it occurred on the spi-trademark mailing list created, in part, in response to the issue. Martin was only pushing the advice of our lawyer who, while perhaps not the person who knows how best to keep our website simple and streamlined, is the person who knows best know how to keep our trademark in our hands. Regards, Mako -- Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpU7DzqPN9Sf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is work on Debian community service?
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 12:24:01AM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote: Do you think work for the Debian project should be considered Community Service? How about work only indirectly for Debian (i.e. work on upstream projects)? How about work on other free software projects? It's serving a community (your community even) and in my book, certainly community service. Check to see if your school has a more specific definition (ex. Martin's not fun clause) but if you just need someone to sign off on it, there are certainly developers (myself included) that would be willing to work with you to get this done. -- B. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~mako/ pgpI9aVwTRaVo.pgp Description: PGP signature
