Re: [Debian-uk] Mini-DebConf in Cambridge, UK - November 5-8 2015

[Steve McIntyre]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Paul Waring wrote:
>On 14/09/15 15:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I'm also hoping to find sponsors again to cover some other costs for
>> the conference for things like food - please contact me if you can
>> help!
>
>I probably can't justify the cost of attending, but I'm happy to chip in
>£100 towards sponsoring the event and have it go towards whatever you
>feel is appropriate (food, speaker expenses etc.)

Hi Paul!

Thanks for your awesome offer of sponsorship! I've deliberately hung
back before replying to see what I could come up with in terms of
corporate sponsorship offers first. I'd rather spend company money in
preference, and leave Debian users with their money for important
things like beer if I can... :-)

As it happens, I *have* received enough offers to cover all the costs
we're expecting for the miniconf (see the page if you're interested!)
so you don't need to help us. But please accept my heart-felt
gratitude for the offer in any case - it's really appreciated!

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back

Re: [Debian-uk] Mini-DebConf in Cambridge, UK - November 5-8 2015

[Paul Waring]

On 14/09/15 15:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm also hoping to find sponsors again to cover some other costs for
> the conference for things like food - please contact me if you can
> help!

I probably can't justify the cost of attending, but I'm happy to chip in
£100 towards sponsoring the event and have it go towards whatever you
feel is appropriate (food, speaker expenses etc.)

Paul

[not on debian-project so please CC me if replying]

-- 
Paul Waring
Freelance consultant
http://www.pwaring.com

Re: [Debian-uk] Mini-Debconf in Cambridge, UK - November 14-17 2013

[Andrew Shadura]

Hi,

On 16 August 2013 15:23, Paul Mellors  wrote:
>> I'm organising a mini-conf in Cambridge for November this year. My
>> employer ARM has graciously volunteered to host people for 4 days for
>> a mix of sprint sessions and talks:

>> For more details and to sign up to attend, please visit the wiki page
>> at
>>   https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Miniconf-UK/2013

>> I look forwards to seeing lots of you in November!

Should I book my flight already? :)

-- 
WBR, Andrew


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/cacujmdpzced8jyw--iojdar6h_qwjf3ooehgq6az-zvrtbz...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debian-uk] Mini-Debconf in Cambridge, UK - November 14-17 2013

[Steve McIntyre]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:23:24PM +0100, Paul Mellors wrote:
>Hello All
>
>If it ok to paste that link into twitter/facebook etc to promote it?
>
>I can't make the event but can big it up a bit :)

Of course, yes please!

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130816142735.gg26...@einval.com

Re: [Debian-uk] Mini-Debconf in Cambridge, UK - November 14-17 2013

[Paul Mellors]

Hello All

If it ok to paste that link into twitter/facebook etc to promote it?

I can't make the event but can big it up a bit :)

Paul


On 16 August 2013 14:19, Steve McIntyre  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I'm organising a mini-conf in Cambridge for November this year. My
> employer ARM has graciously volunteered to host people for 4 days for
> a mix of sprint sessions and talks:
>
>  * 2 days for a mini-DebCamp (Thu 14 - Fri 15), with space for
>dedicated development / sprint / team meetings for up to 40 people
>
>  * 2 days for a more regular mini-conf (Sat 16 - Sun 17) with space
>for more general talks, up to 100 people
>
> and I'm hoping to find sponsors to cover some other costs for the
> conference for things like food.
>
> I'm expecting that we will end up discussing and working on the new
> arm64 port and other ARM-related topics at the very least, but there's
> obviously also scope for other subjects for sprint work and talks.
>
> For more details and to sign up to attend, please visit the wiki page
> at
>
>   https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Miniconf-UK/2013
>
> I look forwards to seeing lots of you in November!
>
> --
> Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.
> st...@einval.com
>
> ___
> Debian-uk maillist  -  debian...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/debian-uk
>
>

Philip Hands's continued messenger-shoot, was: [OT] MJ Ray's continued burbling (was Re: Debian UK ....)

[MJ Ray]

Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you think that mail was a joke? [...]

The poor attempt at telepathy, claiming someone said "BTW" and ":-)"
then rounding off by confirming that a constitution is required if
you ask for a bank account type that requires a constitution
(and exclude other bank account types by the question's wording).

> Perhaps you don't get to experience many people smiling while they're in
> conversation with you, [...]

Perhaps you only do character assassination when trying to ignore
a sensitive issue.

> The fact that you feel the need to dismiss any criticism as a joke is
> rather revealing.

Again, a claim of empathic ability fails dismally.

Are you upset that you contradicted your own assertion that DUS
doesn't hold personal details?

-- 
MJ Ray (slef)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[OT] MJ Ray's continued burbling (was Re: Debian UK ....)

[Philip Hands]

MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> In many
> circumstances, law says groups must apply for a decision,
> but DUS won't and I'm not sure whether the call reported in
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-uk/2005-August/010548.html
> really happened or was a joke like much of the rest of that mail.

Why do you think that mail was a joke?

The only hint I can find would be the smile I attributed to the person I
was talking to at the charity commission.

Perhaps you don't get to experience many people smiling while they're in
conversation with you, and so cannot conceive of the concept, but since she
was laughing when she asked if she could join the Debian UK Society I
thought it only right to report that with a smiley INSIDE THE QUOTES.

The rest of the mail, in which I address all the complaints, whinges, and
unfounded assertions I could find in your previous deluge of mails
certainly wasn't meant to be jovial.

The fact that you feel the need to dismiss any criticism as a joke is
rather revealing.

Cheers, Phil.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

[MJ Ray]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [DUS expenses]
> Ok.  I certainly wouldn't call "items for sale" a case of "spending on
> itself", though; and at least in the US, I suspect these expenses might
> be accounted for in a somewhat different fashion than the breakdown
> given above.  (But perhaps someone with more accounting experience than
> I could check me on that.)

In the UK, they'd probably appear differently on a balance sheet too.
Are you looking at the accounts for information, or to fill out a
form, though?

[...]
> Well, looking through <http://www.charity-commision.gov.uk/>, I can't
> actually find anything that spells out how the UK decides whether a
> stated object is charitable, but I also definitely don't see anything in
> their example objects that would cover SPI's charter.  Education is one
> of SPI's stated objectives, yes, but advocacy is also, and it's my
> impression that advocacy is off-limits for UK charities.

Bluntly: why does that impression matter? I've encountered many
prejudices about charities, some of which are incorrect.

There is a rather fuzzy "benefit of the community"
charity heading, which is often under review. They also
change what counts as "political" (which isn't allowed for
charities). Explicitly trying to support or defeat legislation
seems clearly political, but more general direction of society
to be helpful (or charitable?) is sometimes allowed.

The only way to decide for sure seems to be to apply to the
commissioners, and a court if necessary beyond that. In many
circumstances, law says groups must apply for a decision,
but DUS won't and I'm not sure whether the call reported in
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-uk/2005-August/010548.html
really happened or was a joke like much of the rest of that mail.

Best wishes,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:40:23PM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
>> In the UK, VAT registration is *required* if you are "in business"[1]
>> and your 12-month *turnover* exceeds £6. Probably this is not an
>> issue for this organisation at present.
>
> VAT registration isn't the one you need to worry about. Debian-UK
> isn't going to be shifting that much money in a hurry.
>
> Corporation Tax is the one to worry about. The limit for that is only
> £10,000 per financial year. I just ran a few quick projections based
> on the reports in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives, and it's reasonably
> likely that it'll be over that limit next year, given the current rate
> of growth in sales. It might be over this year, that's hard to

Well spotted, that man.

> predict. Corporation Tax also applies to members associations, clubs
> and societies at the same rate as for registered companies. Basically
> any group of two or more people that handles money and isn't a charity
> is going to have to pay Corporation Tax; HMRC's definition of
> "company" is "anything that owes us money and isn't an individual
> citizen".
>
> Corporation Tax requires annual tax returns and notification that the
> company exists, and HMRC is going to come along and audit anything as
> weird as Debian-UK fairly quickly, so the accounts had better be in
> order, backdated six years. Failure to file the tax returns in a
> timely manner results in a fine of £100/£200 plus 10%/20% of the
> unpaid tax, depending on how untimely you are. Failure to have your
> accounts in order when they audit results in HMRC conducting an
> autopsy of the company.

I assume that someone is even now writing a quick script to import the
historical accounts into sql-ledger (which does a pretty good job of it)
so the previous years reports can be produced on demand?


> It may also require a tax return to be filed for years when the
> association is below the limit. I'm not sure about that. If it does,
> the same penalties apply. Ask a chartered accountant.
>
> And those penalties can probably be applied against any members, since
> it's not incorporated with limits on liability.

Incorporate a company limited by guarantee, rather than a company
limited by shares. (Avoids the whole shareholder issue; and they're
expected to be a bit weird).

>
> Bugger.

No, that's what the taxman might do.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:40:23PM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
> In the UK, VAT registration is *required* if you are "in business"[1]
> and your 12-month *turnover* exceeds £6. Probably this is not an
> issue for this organisation at present.

VAT registration isn't the one you need to worry about. Debian-UK
isn't going to be shifting that much money in a hurry.

Corporation Tax is the one to worry about. The limit for that is only
£10,000 per financial year. I just ran a few quick projections based
on the reports in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives, and it's reasonably
likely that it'll be over that limit next year, given the current rate
of growth in sales. It might be over this year, that's hard to
predict. Corporation Tax also applies to members associations, clubs
and societies at the same rate as for registered companies. Basically
any group of two or more people that handles money and isn't a charity
is going to have to pay Corporation Tax; HMRC's definition of
"company" is "anything that owes us money and isn't an individual
citizen".

Corporation Tax requires annual tax returns and notification that the
company exists, and HMRC is going to come along and audit anything as
weird as Debian-UK fairly quickly, so the accounts had better be in
order, backdated six years. Failure to file the tax returns in a
timely manner results in a fine of £100/£200 plus 10%/20% of the
unpaid tax, depending on how untimely you are. Failure to have your
accounts in order when they audit results in HMRC conducting an
autopsy of the company.

It may also require a tax return to be filed for years when the
association is below the limit. I'm not sure about that. If it does,
the same penalties apply. Ask a chartered accountant.

And those penalties can probably be applied against any members, since
it's not incorporated with limits on liability.

Bugger.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> If that organisation operates for a period of time, then a court
> would need convincing that the members were not jointly and
> severally liable for the liabilities of that organisation.

I get more and more happy that I moved out of that country.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
 spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The charta of the association may need to be approved by Debian
> (DPL should be sufficient) due to the "Debian" trademark.  However,
> since it is used descriptively, this may not be required.

Exactly. It's a similar situation, in trademark terms, to the
DCC Alliance. Same public standard should be applied to both.

[...]
> > that they should not be allowed to spend money donated to the Debian
> > Project without approval of the DPL/Debian.
> 
> I guess that legally this is not possible.  In several countries it
> is not possible for charities / non-profit associations to do earmarking
> of donations which SPI is doing. [...]

In England, it's not only possible, but charities are advised
to do something similar, called restricted donations in
the Charity Commission Statement of Recommended Practice.

DUS is hoping not to register as a charity and its constitution
doesn't require it to be non-profit, last I knew. (Hey, I once
ran a business that made a loss: could I have renamed it debian?)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Martin Schulze]

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Usually, it's DDs or Debian affiliated people who have decided to produce
> > and hand out stuff, partially even sell it at more or less cost price.
> > The revenue is then donated to the organisation that supports Debian.
> > 
> > Even if the Debian UK Society will sell t-shirts, mugs, DVDs etc.
> > it's technically not The Debian Project but the society of active
> > Debian people who want to promote Debian and Free Software.
> > 
> > Even if the Debian UK Society will represent the Debian Project formally,
> > legally and fiscally in the UK, it's not the Debian Project.  They should
> > be free to do what they want to support and promote Debian and Free
> > Software as long as they maintain their non-profit/charity status and
> > obey the goals/charta.
> 
> I disagree.  If they're going to represent the Debian Project, either
> formally, legally or fiscally in the UK, then they should report to the
> DPL and follow Debian policies.  This means, in addition to other
> things, that they aren't free to do what they want.  I certainly feel

You should read more closely what I wrote, since that's not what I
wrote.  I'll quote it for you:

| legally and fiscally in the UK, it's not the Debian Project.  They should
| be free to do what they want to support and promote Debian and Free
| Software as long as they maintain their non-profit/charity status and
| obey the goals/charta.

The charta of the association may need to be approved by Debian
(DPL should be sufficient) due to the "Debian" trademark.  However,
since it is used descriptively, this may not be required.

> that they should not be allowed to spend money donated to the Debian
> Project without approval of the DPL/Debian.

I guess that legally this is not possible.  In several countries it
is not possible for charities / non-profit associations to do earmarking
of donations which SPI is doing.  Hence, this may depend on the goodwill
of the association and the compatibility of the association's goals with
the goals of Debian.

Anyway, since we're discussing selling of items (at cost price) do
we really want to continue doing this by random people who may keep
the reveue, independent of how little it'll be?  It's not like DUS
is setting up a shop and stuff, but provides what users want at a
Debian booth, in order to support Debian and promote Free Sofware.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
-- Linus Torvalds


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Martin Schulze]

Stephen Frost wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/info
> 
> "Debian does not sell any products."

Usually, it's DDs or Debian affiliated people who have decided to produce
and hand out stuff, partially even sell it at more or less cost price.
The revenue is then donated to the organisation that supports Debian.

Even if the Debian UK Society will sell t-shirts, mugs, DVDs etc.
it's technically not The Debian Project but the society of active
Debian people who want to promote Debian and Free Software.

Even if the Debian UK Society will represent the Debian Project formally,
legally and fiscally in the UK, it's not the Debian Project.  They should
be free to do what they want to support and promote Debian and Free
Software as long as they maintain their non-profit/charity status and
obey the goals/charta.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
-- Linus Torvalds


-- 
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list.

Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/

To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Is the data contained in the debian-keyring that relates to you inaccurate?

Not as far as I can tell. It's different to db.d.o and easier
to edit. It still has no assurance of following our country's
data protection principles, so careful how you use it. It's
better than db.d.o, though, which is what DUS uses now.

Thanks,
-- 
MJR/slef


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> So a charity for the benefit of Debian members would not work unless
>> Debian was a charity, which it can't be for the aforementioned political
>> reason.
>
> I thought the political exeception was most about seeking to
> directly influence legislation and what-not.  Debian's specific
> purpose is "to create a free operating system" - is that
> political? I don't know.

I'm sure someone with an axe to grind against, say, Free Software as a
whole would like the chance to use this to drag a bunch of developers
into court.

Anyway, with the word "free" in that being "free as in freedom", I
suspect it is most explicitly political :->

cheers, Rich.


-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Philip Hands]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> 
>>I'm rather surprised you've not managed to work that out on your own,
>>especially given the fact that numerous people have reacted with confusion
>>to your assertion that we're holding your personal details.
> 
> 
> I suspected it was that way around, but as you noted earlier
> in your message, there's still no action for me to avoid
> having inaccurate personal details processed by the society.

Nope, you've lost me again -- what does the rest of that sentence mean?

Is the data contained in the debian-keyring that relates to you inaccurate?

>>In conclusion, feel free to relax, we never did have your personal details,
>>and you're no longer a member (having stated in public [...]
> 
>   ^
> Nearly. I want no association with DUS, because I never joined
> your association. DUS should accept non-consenting DDs aren't
> and never were really part of the association.
> 

Works for me :-)

Cheers, Phil.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I'm rather surprised you've not managed to work that out on your own,
> especially given the fact that numerous people have reacted with confusion
> to your assertion that we're holding your personal details.

I suspected it was that way around, but as you noted earlier
in your message, there's still no action for me to avoid
having inaccurate personal details processed by the society.

> In conclusion, feel free to relax, we never did have your personal details,
> and you're no longer a member (having stated in public [...]
  ^
Nearly. I want no association with DUS, because I never joined
your association. DUS should accept non-consenting DDs aren't
and never were really part of the association.

-- 
MJR/slef


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

* Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 12:09]:
> On reflection, I think we should ensure that the wording makes it clear
> that one has to express an interest in membership in order to be considered
> a member.  I'll start a thread to that effect back on the debian-uk list.

I know a local organisation here where all people that are "default
members" can become member with expressing that interest or taking part
in the organisation (like voting), and the quorums are made so that it
doesn't matter how many members there are - i.e. you can just start a
vote at the "right place", and everyone who votes is member. (And same
for leaving the organization - their membership expires by itself.)


Of course, there are much more ways to do it right, and it's not my task
to decide which to take :)



Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> So a charity for the benefit of Debian members would not work unless
> Debian was a charity, which it can't be for the aforementioned political
> reason.

I thought the political exeception was most about seeking to
directly influence legislation and what-not.  Debian's specific
purpose is "to create a free operating system" - is that
political? I don't know.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the UK, charities are *heavily regulated*. It's easier to set up a
> Limited Company than a charity, and for good reason.

This is a known bug and attempts are being made to fix it
somewhat with the "light touch" approach to small charities:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/ogs/g200a001.asp


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>
> On reflection, I think we should ensure that the wording makes it clear
> that one has to express an interest in membership in order to be considered
> a member.  I'll start a thread to that effect back on the debian-uk list.

As a complete bystander, I'd just suggest that you consider using a
standard association constitution, so should you get a punitive audit,
at least you'll have a structure in place.

<http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A//www.communitylaw.co.uk/files/Structures/constitution.PDF&ei=5fseQ_7_OM2GwQGgopGWCw>

cheers, Rich.


-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:15:17AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:50:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > > > > As previously argued, DUS is an enterprise generating income from
> > > > > commercial sale of goods - a business.
> > > > 
> > > > More assertions.
> > > 
> > > Assertions?
> > > That DUS is an enterprise?
> > 
> > What exactly is this DUS thingy you are all speaking about ? Is it the same 
> > as
> > Debian-UK under another name, or something else ? 
> 
> DUS -> Debian UK Society. I'm sure this was obvious from a previous
> post.

Got confunded by both DUS and Debian-Uk appaearing in the same mails,
apparently as two separate entities.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>
> 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?  

£6 turnover => you *must* be VAT registered.

You might get sued => you *want* a form of association providing
protection for officers and members e.g. Limited Company

Don't make a profit => nothing at all.

Don't want to make a profit => nothing at all

You pay money to people in recompense for their efforts or to cover
their expenses => someone in the org should understand UK PAYE, Tax and
Expenses law.

This stuff isn't hard. It's just *stupid* to go around saying "oh, we
claim we're not commercial because we're not trying to make a profit,
just raise some money". It would be like, oh, trying to do contract work
without a legal entity to bill through and then wondering why the taxman
wanted a lot of money from you.

cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * 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.

In the UK, charities are *heavily regulated*. It's easier to set up a
Limited Company than a charity, and for good reason.

cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Scripsit Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Actually, depending on what parts of UK law the organisation ended up
>> falling under (and without a clear constitution &c this will probably
>> *not* be what you expect it to be) the membership might be jointly and
>> severally liable for the actions of the organisation.
>
> Do you mean that under UK law I could unilaterally set up an
> organization with bylaws that declare that the membership consists of
> you, and then go on to create debt that you will be legally liable
> for?

Stranger things happen in business on a regular basis.

Recently, a UK football club was bought from the shareholders with money
borrowed from banks. Now the club is liable for the bank debt.

Specifically, though, we have a pool of people already members of an
organisation with a constitution. Some of them within a consistent
well-defined subset have set up an organisation that appears to include
all members of that subset. If that organisation operates for a period
of time, then a court would need convincing that the members were not
jointly and severally liable for the liabilities of that organisation.

This kind of thing fouls up small groups trying to "do good" on a
regular basis.


> I know that UK law is crazy in some respects, but I cannot believe it
> is *that* crazy.

Heh.

Some bits of it work well. The rest is more or less interesting. But at
least they've made a sterling effort to make it accessible and
understandable.

cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the UK, we can construct companies in a number of ways. [...list...]

Additionally, you can be a sole trader, a partnership (usually
with a private agreement between the members), or some more
esoteric ones like a royal charter corporation. Co-operative
or charity statuses are more about actions than structure and
they exist as any of these and more besides.

-- 
MJR/slef
past New Entrepreneur Scholar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 06:38:38PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> > So the society is certainly a
>> > /corporation/, but if it's a business it's a piss-poor one.
>
>> A corporation is a legal person which can own stuff itself and
>> so on. DUS is an unincorporated association and not a corporation.
>
> Ah, so it's an unincorporated society at that.  Yes, I can certainly
> understand the concerns about liability, then.
>
>> > (Likewise,
>> > SPI is a corporation, but not a business; and from what I understand of
>> > such things, SPI could also not be considered a charity under UK law.)
>
>> Why not, just out of interest? It seems to act for the benefit
>> of the community and I didn't notice any obvious exclusion.
>
> Well, looking through , I can't
> actually find anything that spells out how the UK decides whether a
> stated object is charitable, but I also definitely don't see anything in
> their example objects that would cover SPI's charter.  Education is one
> of SPI's stated objectives, yes, but advocacy is also, and it's my
> impression that advocacy is off-limits for UK charities.

If the activities are political, it can't be a charity:




"no organisation can be charitable if:
* it is created for the specific purpose of carrying out political or 
propagandist activities; "


" if the beneficiaries are related or connected to the person who is
setting up the charity, or where they are defined by common employment
or by membership of a non-charitable body, for example, members of a
professional institute." 
then it cannot be a charity.
So a charity for the benefit of Debian members would not work unless
Debian was a charity, which it can't be for the aforementioned political
reason.

cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Matthew Garrett]

Modesto Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> < Manoj> I have seen debian booths selling stuff at every conference
>>   since '97
>> 
>> Because policy hasn't matched practice for a very long time. When that's
>> the case, it strongly implies that policy is wrong.
> 
> That doesn't show that policy hasn't matched practice.
> Stuff can be sold from debian booths without the seller
> being debian (or calling their business debian). Indeed,
> that was the practice in the UK until DUS, wasn't it?

What's the practical difference between these things? When people give
money to a bunch of people standing at a stall with a big "Debian" sign
on it, they assume that they're buying something off Debian.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is "you"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd draw a distinction between Debian and it's representatives at Expos and
> the like. [...]

By adding the characters "-UK" or something more distinctive?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> < Manoj> I have seen debian booths selling stuff at every conference
>   since '97
> 
> Because policy hasn't matched practice for a very long time. When that's
> the case, it strongly implies that policy is wrong.

That doesn't show that policy hasn't matched practice.
Stuff can be sold from debian booths without the seller
being debian (or calling their business debian). Indeed,
that was the practice in the UK until DUS, wasn't it?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 07:15:19PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The way we price this stuff has always been based on selling it as cheaply
>> > as possible, while making the numbers round for convenient change at Expos,
>> > and aiming to do just better than break-even [...]
>
>> How can anyone define a not-for-profit business if that's not one?
>
> I can't, because in my vocabulary "not-for-profit business" is an
> oxymoron?

In the UK, we can construct companies in a number of ways.

A company Limited by Shares is owned by its shareholders, and expected
to attempt to return a profit to them.

A company Limited by Guarantee isn't and is not expected to produce a
profit. They are less common, though.

We can also form a Co-operative, owned by its members and not
necessarily expected to make a profit.

Businesses trade as any of these happily.

cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 16:32]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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. [...]

> What is translating as "non-commercial institution" here?
> 
> I'd regard a German e.V. or French association a buts non lucratifs
> as capable of being commercial, like a UK charity can be commercial.

"usually" a non-commercial instituation is a tax-chariatable e.V., which
means the amount of commercial things they can do is quite limited.


Cheers,
Andi
- founding-member of 4 such organisations -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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 ?

If you sell stuff in the UK, then tax law applies to you *regardless* of
volume.

There are *exemptions* in the tax law, but "we're doing a good thing"
isn't one of them.

cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Philip Hands]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>[...] There are some people for whom
>>things will not be resolved in acceptable ways. 
> 
> 
> When I'm not part of DUS and don't have to allow DUS to hold my
> personal details, it's resolved for me. I'm surprised if that's
> unacceptable to anyone. There's a shed-load of other stuff that
> would be nice to see, but not enough for me to act on.

The Debian UK Society don't have your details anywhere -- the rules were
written in order to ensure that membership was a matter of definition,
rather than a question of being on a list somewhere.

Ironically, the only reason it might be necessary to record your details
would be to record the fact that you've opted out, but I'm reasonably sure
that the secretary & membership will manage to recall that fact without
artificial aids.

Once we switch to opt in, I suppose we'll keep a list of GPG keys belonging
to members, which will still not require personal details to be kept.

I'm rather surprised you've not managed to work that out on your own,
especially given the fact that numerous people have reacted with confusion
to your assertion that we're holding your personal details.

In conclusion, feel free to relax, we never did have your personal details,
and you're no longer a member (having stated in public on at least three
occasions that you didn't wish to be one).

Cheers, Phil.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. [...]

What is translating as "non-commercial institution" here?

I'd regard a German e.V. or French association a buts non lucratifs
as capable of being commercial, like a UK charity can be commercial.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Philip Hands wrote:



Is it SPI or a random assortment of Debian folks that attend expos in the US?



Random Debian people.  Not even DDs in some cases.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Matthew Garrett]

Merle Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When it comes to the technical side of things, policy follows practice.
> 
> So why flout previous policy? Presumably there's some past
> practice which caused it, even if it's just writing. If you
> really believe no-one objects, make the change first. Debian
> policy is not just post-event rationalisation of DD actions.

< Manoj> I have seen debian booths selling stuff at every conference
  since '97

Because policy hasn't matched practice for a very long time. When that's
the case, it strongly implies that policy is wrong.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is "you"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Should debian formalize t-shirt sales at events (Was Re: Debian-UK).

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:33:55AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.

Well, at least in germany and france, we have associations which are
non-profit, and have the right to do such things, without being businesses or
commercial stuff. And naturally, you have the guys who do this informally
too, which is what used to happen in the UK previously.

But i guess if you compare what happens in the debian-present show events, and
the commercial subdistributions, and the above example, and apply common
sense, you will fall easily enough on the distinction we are making.

The real question is not if there should be debian t-shirts sold on debian
booth on events, or not, but :

  1) do we want a formal commercial entity in charge of merchandizing the
  debian frenchize with t-shirts, mugs, whatever.

  2) What happens to the money of the above if there is a gain made (and who
  pays if there is a loss).

I guess the reply to debian becoming a commercial entity and doing 1) is
clear, at least in the current context, and well, the way 2) currently works
is that gains are put in a fund serving for next time stock buying, thus
ensuring nobody needs to put money from their own pocket, or donated to debian
for use as the DPL decides (or whoever delegate is in charge of that).

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 16:15]:
> In general I believe the practice *has* been that we don't
> sell things.

Actually, I have never seen any Debian booth where we didn't sell
things. With exception of fairs where the fair didn't allow it.


> > 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.

To something like
"Debian doesn't sell CDs via the Internet. However, at some events
Debian sells CDs (and other stuff), depending if the local applicable
laws make that possible without too much ado."
?


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Philip Hands]

Stephen Frost wrote:

> 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.

I'd draw a distinction between Debian and it's representatives at Expos and
the like.

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that Debian should sell merchandise via
www.debian.org (or even via www.uk.debian.org, say)

As far as I know it's generally been the case that Debian merchandise has
been available for purchase from Debian Expo stands in most European
countries.  In fact, if I was going to a show elsewhere, I'd be
disappointed if I didn't get the chance to buy the local Debian designs.
All the shows I have been to have offered me that chance AFAIK (in fact I
was quite surprised to discover that this is not the case in the US, but I
suppose local sales tax is a killer)

> 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...

Is it SPI or a random assortment of Debian folks that attend expos in the US?

Cheers, Phil.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] There are some people for whom
> things will not be resolved in acceptable ways. 

When I'm not part of DUS and don't have to allow DUS to hold my
personal details, it's resolved for me. I'm surprised if that's
unacceptable to anyone. There's a shed-load of other stuff that
would be nice to see, but not enough for me to act on.

> > 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.

So why flout previous policy? Presumably there's some past
practice which caused it, even if it's just writing. If you
really believe no-one objects, make the change first. Debian
policy is not just post-event rationalisation of DD actions.

-- 
MJ Ray (slef)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Philip Hands]

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>>>* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[...]
>>>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?

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.

Cheers, Phil.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Matthew Garrett]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Well, I'm not sure that's much of a counterargument.  Just because DUS
> has chosen as partners companies that are a) leaders in their field and
> b) happy with the arrangement doesn't mean that its CD sales have zero
> impact on *others* that might be trying to sell CDs, does it?  Not that
> I have a problem with Steve, Phil, and the others either buying or
> selling CDs, but we should consider whether it's appropriate to be
> selling them under the name "Debian UK Society".  Maybe it doesn't a
> damn bit of difference, though -- whether it's DUS, or Phil and Steve,
> they're obviously going to be sold at the Debian booth, so the name
> endorsement is already there, right?

>From what I recall, the only other people that typically sell CDs at UK
shows are the people that provide us with CDs. It's /possible/ that in
the absence of Debian selling CDs, other companies would have sprung up
to do so - but that's fairly extreme handwaving. No evidence has ever
been presented that this situation discourages anyone.
 
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

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 ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Matthew Garrett]

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".
 
>> 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. 

> 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.
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.
 
> 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?
 
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:53:54AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > 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.

My question was plain simple, does the debian trademark extend to textiles and
other t-shirt or is it only covering software ? This has a simple answer, and
does not include the stuff you are speaking about, which are a separate
matter.

> > 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...

I have seen the word Trademark mentioned in a subject of a subthread here, so
...

Friendly,

Sven Luther



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

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 ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:58:59AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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 guess that simply means that you have no clue what a comercial entity is :)
See my other mail.

> > 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.

Sure, but not over an internal disput of those UK guys :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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]

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.

It's claimed that I'm in a minority of UK DDs in not wanting
any assocation with DUS. That's a non-argument. It's not good
to ignore basic rights just because you think only a minority
is affected.  Do we really need debian to agree to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights? At the moment, would it do so?

I've been trying to resolve these problems with the DUS
leaders since the constitution was announced in March, pointing
likely defects in the pub draft (in public and private) and
suggesting they use a good example instead, but I've never been
universally popular with UK DDs: I'm not a computer scientist,
I don't drink enough, I'm not diplomatic enough and I call
bugs bugs. With technical things, that doesn't matter, as
in the end, you can demonstrate or test it. Law doesn't do
that so easily. Ultimately, I've researched this and am sure
enough, but I'm going to do the minimum possible to fix it to
my satisfaction now, which includes explaining this here!

Good luck with discovering debian's attitude to commerce,
whatever the outcome.

Best wishes,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [050907 15:02]:
> 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 example in Germany, sales taxes don't need to be payed if you make
less than ~16000 Euro revenues per year with selling stuff (it's a bit
more complex, but - well, that's basically why this is not an issue).

> 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".

Within German law, Debian is even a chartiy, which goes nice for tax
purposes (however, being a charity doesn't help you with the sales tax
stuff at all here, but that doesn't matter because we're small enough in
financial terms). :)


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Anthony Towns]

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.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:01:12AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > 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".
> 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.

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".

> 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.

It certainly includes me. Businesses are run for the profit of their
founders, shareholders or members. Debian-UK's run to improve Debian, and
any excess funds are kept around and spent for the organisations stated
aims; at least as far as I can see from the other side of the world.

> 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?

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:47:24AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.

Nope, restricting your world view in warped US-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.

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.

> 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.

> > > 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.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Stephen Frost]

* 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]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:03:03AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.

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.

> > 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.

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).

> > 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.

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).

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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 cert

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

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.

> > .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.

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.

The problem would appear if there was a large volume being made, if the profit
didn't go exclusively to debian, and such.

> > 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..

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.

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.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 14:02]:
> * 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.

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.)


> > 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.

Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts
and other stuff.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Stephen Frost]

* 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 (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 06:38:38PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

> > and it does not engage in any lucrative activities of
> > which the society itself is a benefactor, seeing that revenue from CD
> > sales is donated to Debian. 

> DUS spends on itself, which is necessary in its current setup.
> >From the last three treasurer's reports:

> DUS expenses:
>   Items for sale 1718.00
>   Lunch at show22.82
>   Photocopying  0.73

> Debian expenses:
>   DPL expenses230.37
>   buildd hardware 135.14

Ok.  I certainly wouldn't call "items for sale" a case of "spending on
itself", though; and at least in the US, I suspect these expenses might
be accounted for in a somewhat different fashion than the breakdown
given above.  (But perhaps someone with more accounting experience than
I could check me on that.)

In any case, we evidently do at least have some 23 GBP in
non-Debian-approved expenditures over the course of three months.  That
doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount of overhead, though I guess
some may object that "lunch at show" is not an appropriate *kind* of
expenditure.  I can't tell, myself; I don't have any strong feelings
about what the guidelines should be that govern such things.

> > So the society is certainly a
> > /corporation/, but if it's a business it's a piss-poor one.

> A corporation is a legal person which can own stuff itself and
> so on. DUS is an unincorporated association and not a corporation.

Ah, so it's an unincorporated society at that.  Yes, I can certainly
understand the concerns about liability, then.

> > (Likewise,
> > SPI is a corporation, but not a business; and from what I understand of
> > such things, SPI could also not be considered a charity under UK law.)

> Why not, just out of interest? It seems to act for the benefit
> of the community and I didn't notice any obvious exclusion.

Well, looking through , I can't
actually find anything that spells out how the UK decides whether a
stated object is charitable, but I also definitely don't see anything in
their example objects that would cover SPI's charter.  Education is one
of SPI's stated objectives, yes, but advocacy is also, and it's my
impression that advocacy is off-limits for UK charities.

> > > In general, I think a group now should be called debian only if:
> > >   1. it's a debian subproject, OR
> > >   2. it's a local charity and got consensus BEFORE trading, OR
> > >   3. it's outside the scope of trademark infringement,
> > > because these things have big potential to reflect on debian.
> > > 1 offers debian some influence, 2 should ensure minimal "good
> > > governance" and debian influence and 3 we can't do much about.

> > Why should *charities* get special consideration, anyway?  Being a
> > charity doesn't automatically make them aligned with Debian's goals.

> Indeed, which is why debian should reach consensus before they
> trade. I think charities should get some special consideration
> because law enforces some level of openness and honour not
> required of other organisations.

Well, charities (as a category legally distinct from "non-profits")
don't exist in my jurisdiction, so I'm rather disinclined to use that as
a standard.  AFAICT, such a standard would actually equate to "the
British government says it's a charity", which doesn't do anyone in
other countries a bit of good.  If there are specific,
jurisdiction-independent features of UK charities which you consider
important, perhaps we should be discussing those instead.

> > I think any local org using the Debian name should be accountable to the
> > DPL for the use of that name, if that's what you mean by being a "Debian
> > subproject"; but then, a simple revocable trademark license seems to
> > wholly achieve that.

> By debian subproject, I mean one of the things that follows the
> general ideas of:
> 1. announcement and open discussion before its creation;
> 2. voluntary participation of debian developers;
> 3. support from some other key debian groups; and
> 4. accountable to the wider project;
> which are mostly outlined in the draft subproject howto.

Ok.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Philip Hands]

Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>>Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>>>Is DUS's involuntary membership even legal? I don't know.
> 
>>>Which law would prevent them from giving you a vote in their matters?
>>>How would you enforce such a law? [...]
> 
>>You moved slickly from membership to whether one has a vote.
> 
> That's the only thing membership *means* when there are no dues to pay.

In the _many_ criticisms that MJ Ray has rolled out recently, this is one
of the few that holds any water IMO, but as Henning has correctly spotted,
the intent was to allow a vote to any DD who lives in the UK, unless they
stated that they didn't want to be involved.

On reflection, I think we should ensure that the wording makes it clear
that one has to express an interest in membership in order to be considered
a member.  I'll start a thread to that effect back on the debian-uk list.

Cheers, Phil.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You moved slickly from membership to whether one has a vote.
> 
> That's the only thing membership *means* when there are no dues to pay.

Being part of an unincorporated association has other implications.
Debating whether they are meaningful is uninteresting and irrelevant.
DUS could hold wider votes without claiming involuntary membership.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Brett Parker]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:50:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > > > As previously argued, DUS is an enterprise generating income from
> > > > commercial sale of goods - a business.
> > > 
> > > More assertions.
> > 
> > Assertions?
> > That DUS is an enterprise?
> 
> What exactly is this DUS thingy you are all speaking about ? Is it the same as
> Debian-UK under another name, or something else ? 

DUS -> Debian UK Society. I'm sure this was obvious from a previous
post.

Thanks,
- -- 
Brett Parker
web:   http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDHq+kEh8oWxevnjQRAm0qAJ0XhM0bdfhZl+t+qeqykD7CIo8OhgCgxoQO
mweVBstniZMvc2tqj+Z6pw0=
=tMnB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:38:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] in my vocabulary "not-for-profit business" is an oxymoron?
> 
> OK. So, for example, http://www.createuk.com/ isn't a business to you?

  "CREATE is a charity and social business based in Speke in Liverpool."

No, doesn't look like a business to me.  They seem to use the term
"social business" throughout, which is not a term I've ever heard in
en_US, and in any case *they* seem to think it's important enough of a
distinction that they never refer to themselves as a plain "business",
always as a *social* business.

> If not, I think your definition is a bit unusual.

I think my definition is the standard one in en_US.  Thus, I think it
would be in the interest of clear communication to avoid use of the word
"business" here when referring to not-for-profit organizations.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> > Is DUS's involuntary membership even legal? I don't know.

>> Which law would prevent them from giving you a vote in their matters?
>> How would you enforce such a law? [...]

> You moved slickly from membership to whether one has a vote.

That's the only thing membership *means* when there are no dues to pay.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Hører I. Kald dem sammen. Så mange som overhovedet
muligt. Jeg siger jer det her er ikke bare stort. Det er
 Stortstortstort. Det er allerhelvedes stort. Det er historiEN."

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] in my vocabulary "not-for-profit business" is an oxymoron?

OK. So, for example, http://www.createuk.com/ isn't a business to you?
If not, I think your definition is a bit unusual.

Best wishes,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? Or is
> it only restricted to software products ?

I don't think it does, which may be the reason for the non-free
logo.  DUS (the _D_ebian _U_K _S_ociety... debian-uk is a
mailing list I'm happy to be on) is also selling software and
I think deliberately naming your organisation with someone else's
trademark is generally bad practice.

> [...] Any juridicial system, where you get assigned
> responsability like that without attending the AGM and signing
> in is probably worthless. I doubt the UK judicial system is
> in this case though.

Quite so! Freedom of association is a basic principle. I hope
DUS's membership assertion wouldn't work as a couple of people
have suggested, but I'd prefer not the risk of court time
to have that confirmed if something goes wrong.

Involuntary membership does exist and that's usually mentioned
in legislation: student unions do it under the terms of the
Education Act 1994. I think the few involuntary membership
groups I know are incorporated, which limits liability.
(I feel some of DUS wrote the constitution as if it was part
of a student union and missed out some necessary features.)

> [...] you have hardly been resaonable in some of your points, so i believe
> there is some understanding in them not wanting to speak with you or whatever.

Can you give examples, please? Off-list is fine.

Thanks,
-- 
MJR/slef


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 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.

> It's somewhat worth pointing out that Mark has something of a reputation
> for inter-personal friction. The probability of the situation being
> resolved to his satisfaction is small, but (to the absolute best of my
> knowledge) he's the only UK-based developer to have raised any serious
> objection to the way things have been handled so far.

If I thought interpersonal friction was the only issue, I wouldn't
bother continuing to follow this thread.  The fact is, MJ has raised a
number of specific concerns that I agree Debian should come to terms
with if DUS is going to be using the Debian name.

The salient questions seem to be:

- Why does the DUS have an opt-out model for DD membership in the org
  (if this is indeed the case)?
- Should an organization that uses the Debian name be selling
  merchandise, or should sales be kept at arm's length from the task of
  holding funds on behalf of Debian?
- Should an organization that uses the Debian name be directly
  accountable to the DPL or other Debian project leadership for how it
  spends Debian money?

and more generally,

- What *should* Debian's policy be on the use of the Debian name by
  affiliate groups?

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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)

Well, I'm not sure that's much of a counterargument.  Just because DUS
has chosen as partners companies that are a) leaders in their field and
b) happy with the arrangement doesn't mean that its CD sales have zero
impact on *others* that might be trying to sell CDs, does it?  Not that
I have a problem with Steve, Phil, and the others either buying or
selling CDs, but we should consider whether it's appropriate to be
selling them under the name "Debian UK Society".  Maybe it doesn't a
damn bit of difference, though -- whether it's DUS, or Phil and Steve,
they're obviously going to be sold at the Debian booth, so the name
endorsement is already there, right?

> Is it inappropriate for an organisation that is closely linked to Debian
> and which uses the Debian name to engage in any form of commercial
> activity? Does the answer to this depend on whether it's for profit or
> not?

I think it would be inappropriate for anyone *other than Debian* to
profit from sales using our name.  Heck, last I checked, the logo policy
doesn't even allow DDs to sell Debian clothing at a profit.

I don't know how I feel about not-for-profit sales using the Debian
name, but I think that's one of the questions that's been put to us...

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:50:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > > As previously argued, DUS is an enterprise generating income from
> > > commercial sale of goods - a business.
> > 
> > More assertions.
> 
> Assertions?
> That DUS is an enterprise?

What exactly is this DUS thingy you are all speaking about ? Is it the same as
Debian-UK under another name, or something else ? 

If you insist on spamming the whole world with this, at least provide good
context.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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 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.

There is no relationship whatsoever in the "core" thingy, or the other debian
derived distros.

And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? Or is
it only restricted to software products ?

> > From my overview of this discussion, it is just a petty person dispute
> > between the "in" people and the "out" ones,
> 
> More like the "in" people and the "also-in" ones ;-)

Well, a petty person dispute nontheless.

> > [...] (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).
> 
> First, I'd rather not take that risk in this climate.

Any juridicial system, where you get assigned responsability like that without
attending the AGM and signing in is probably worthless. I doubt the UK
judicial system is in this case though.

> Second, what would happen to Debian's money if "Debian UK"'s
> constitution is found not to stand up in court?  What'd happen
> to debian's reputation? We'd look like a bunch of clowns who
> can't run one of the simplest business structures!

As opposed to a bunch of clowns who expose their petty disputes on the public
plaza :)

> > So, go solv your internal and interpersonal affairs between yourselves, or
> > bring some more real problems here that warrant this long flamewar :)
> 
> I'm willing to discuss and I've been plain about the walk-away
> points, but there's no sign of DUS movement. This problem needs
> more attention and it would've been better if it came from
> debian supporters here, rather than the alternatives. Sorry.

Well, you have hardly been resaonable in some of your points, so i believe
there is some understanding in them not wanting to speak with you or whatever.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 07:15:19PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The way we price this stuff has always been based on selling it as cheaply
> > as possible, while making the numbers round for convenient change at Expos,
> > and aiming to do just better than break-even [...]

> How can anyone define a not-for-profit business if that's not one?

I can't, because in my vocabulary "not-for-profit business" is an
oxymoron?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian UK

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Actually, depending on what parts of UK law the organisation ended up
> falling under (and without a clear constitution &c this will probably
> *not* be what you expect it to be) the membership might be jointly and
> severally liable for the actions of the organisation.

Do you mean that under UK law I could unilaterally set up an
organization with bylaws that declare that the membership consists of
you, and then go on to create debt that you will be legally liable
for?

I know that UK law is crazy in some respects, but I cannot believe it
is *that* crazy.

-- 
Henning Makholm"But I am a Sunni Muslim," the bemused Arab said.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > As previously argued, DUS is an enterprise generating income from
> > commercial sale of goods - a business.
> 
> More assertions.

Assertions?
That DUS is an enterprise?
That DUS generates income from commercial sale of goods?
That this is what "a business" is?
Huh?

> > Is DUS's involuntary membership even legal? I don't know.
> 
> Which law would prevent them from giving you a vote in their matters?
> How would you enforce such a law? [...]

You moved slickly from membership to whether one has a vote.
That's not the same as associating with others. I'm not
interested in discussing voting rights now. Sorry.

> > "Rest of us"? Are the lurkers supporting you in email? ;-)
> 
> No, they are supporting me telepathically. Stongly enough to punch
> through my tinfoil hat.

Quite.

-- 
MJ Ray (slef)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's somewhat worth pointing out that Mark has something of a reputation
> for inter-personal friction.

I assume you're referring to me. That myth exists mostly among
some DD cliques (IRCers? unsure), some LUGgers (but not all, as
I still get speaking invitations) and those who compete with me
(I take those disliking me as a good sign). In general, I don't
have that reputation. For example, I'm still on polite terms with
the manager of a multi-million pound project that I'm disputing.

Why do you spend time spreading lies when you won't find
time to repair DUS?

> The probability of the situation being
> resolved to his satisfaction is small,

The probability is near 100% and it's just a question of how.
I've suggested some ways DUS could do it, but none taken so far.

> but (to the absolute best of my
> knowledge) he's the only UK-based developer to have raised any serious
> objection to the way things have been handled so far.

And look how I'm treated! That's a fairly powerful way to shut
many people up or, even if they care, make them bet on others
resolving this for now.

DUS also only got a quiet announcement on debian-uk, so some of
its members maybe still didn't know about it.

-- 
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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.

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?

> From my overview of this discussion, it is just a petty person dispute
> between the "in" people and the "out" ones,

More like the "in" people and the "also-in" ones ;-)

> [...] (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).

First, I'd rather not take that risk in this climate.

Second, what would happen to Debian's money if "Debian UK"'s
constitution is found not to stand up in court?  What'd happen
to debian's reputation? We'd look like a bunch of clowns who
can't run one of the simplest business structures!

> So, go solv your internal and interpersonal affairs between yourselves, or
> bring some more real problems here that warrant this long flamewar :)

I'm willing to discuss and I've been plain about the walk-away
points, but there's no sign of DUS movement. This problem needs
more attention and it would've been better if it came from
debian supporters here, rather than the alternatives. Sorry.

-- 
MJR/slef


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Matthew Garrett]

Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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. 

Sure. Let's skip that bit.

> #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.

> 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.

It's somewhat worth pointing out that Mark has something of a reputation
for inter-personal friction. The probability of the situation being
resolved to his satisfaction is small, but (to the absolute best of my
knowledge) he's the only UK-based developer to have raised any serious
objection to the way things have been handled so far.

> 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:

a) It impairs donations (we've seen no sign at all of this happening in
the UK)

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)

c) It's Just Wrong (which is a bit difficult to argue against)

But, as is so often the case, it's hard to know why the current
situation has arisen. I guess the real question that we should be
dealing with is:

Is it inappropriate for an organisation that is closely linked to Debian
and which uses the Debian name to engage in any form of commercial
activity? Does the answer to this depend on whether it's for profit or
not?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:30:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.

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.

.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).

So, go solv your internal and interpersonal affairs between yourselves, or
bring some more real problems here that warrant this long flamewar :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[Rich Walker]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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?

In the UK, "Selling stuff" *is* a commercial activity.

What the intentions of the organisation is, or claims to be, doesn't
enter into it.

This reminds me of the belief Universities have that their use of
material covered by the patents of others doesn't matter, because
University research is "non-commercial". Of course, since Madey vs Duke,
in the US there is precedent that research at Universities *is*
commercial, since (amongst other things) they raise money to do it, and
raise money from the results of it.

The intentions of Debian-UK seem good. But without a legal framework
that will actually hold water against the various issues around
"buying-and-selling" (which we sometimes call "doing business" or "being
commercial") then frankly you are legally better off with one person
sticking the money in a box under their bed.

(At least then they are a sole trader...) 

I agree that worrying about this stuff sounds stupid; at least until you
have to go through PAYE, tax, NI, VAT and so forth. If you manage to
avoid it - good luck to you. But saying "our intentions are good" does
not carry much weight during a punitive tax audit. And, frankly, given
the recent antics of some of the anti-Free-software movement, having an
organisation that is this vulnerable to trivial business legal
shenanigans seems about as sensible as having code without licenses in
Main.


cheers, Rich

>
> -- 
> Henning Makholm   "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
>  useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Rich Walker]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> Yes, I've a personal axe, but it's based on this real event:
>> I was told I had been made a member of a new UK unincorporated
>> association based on db.d.o data. Even if it wasn't a business,
>> involuntary membership violates some basic principles, including
>> privacy of personal life and freedom of association.
>
> Blah. So they allow you to vote if you care to. I'm quite sure they
> don't require you to pay dues. I.e., they are unilaterally granting
> you a privilege without expecting any consideration in return, so if
> you don't want to vote at their meetings, just don't. End of story.

Actually, depending on what parts of UK law the organisation ended up
falling under (and without a clear constitution &c this will probably
*not* be what you expect it to be) the membership might be jointly and
severally liable for the actions of the organisation.

It's good practice when setting up an organisation to ensure that (a)
the members are insulated from such things as the organisation being
sued or going into debt, and (b) the officers of the organisation are
moderately insulated from such things.

A loose association of people, engaged in trade, might well fall "under
the radar" of the law for some time, but I thought Debian of all places
would know that that is *not* a good tactic.


A few minor examples:

In the UK, VAT registration is *required* if you are "in business"[1]
and your 12-month *turnover* exceeds £6. Probably this is not an
issue for this organisation at present.

HMC&E has an interesting guide at
 which includes definitions of
Charity and Non Profit Making Company, and also explains how and when
payments made by an organisation to a person need to be treated for tax.


Since this organisation is making payments to people for expenses, I
assume that someone involved is keeping the relevant paperwork (a
receipt book is a good start) to ensure that the organisation doesn't
fall foul of the law on payments to "staff".




>
>> Is DUS's involuntary membership even legal? I don't know.
>
> Which law would prevent them from giving you a vote in their matters?
> How would you enforce such a law? Do you imagine showing up at their
> AGM and casting a vote, only to sue them with a claim that your own
> vote should not count because you did not agree to have the right to
> vote in the first place? Sheesh.

Under non-UK law this argument might be relevant.

Under UK law, as a member of an association without a legally-structured
constitution, you have potentially *become vulnerable* to any legal
penalty levied at the organisation.


[snip]


Footnotes: 
[1]  By which they mean "buying and selling stuff", roughly.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Sven Luther]

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.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Henning Makholm]

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?

-- 
Henning Makholm   "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
 useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit MJ Ray <[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.

> As previously argued, DUS is an enterprise generating income from
> commercial sale of goods - a business.

More assertions.

> "Rest of us"? Are the lurkers supporting you in email? ;-)

No, they are supporting me telepathically. Stongly enough to punch
through my tinfoil hat.

> Yes, I've a personal axe, but it's based on this real event:
> I was told I had been made a member of a new UK unincorporated
> association based on db.d.o data. Even if it wasn't a business,
> involuntary membership violates some basic principles, including
> privacy of personal life and freedom of association.

Blah. So they allow you to vote if you care to. I'm quite sure they
don't require you to pay dues. I.e., they are unilaterally granting
you a privilege without expecting any consideration in return, so if
you don't want to vote at their meetings, just don't. End of story.

> Is DUS's involuntary membership even legal? I don't know.

Which law would prevent them from giving you a vote in their matters?
How would you enforce such a law? Do you imagine showing up at their
AGM and casting a vote, only to sue them with a claim that your own
vote should not count because you did not agree to have the right to
vote in the first place? Sheesh.

> Do you like sloppy orgs called themselves "debian"? :-/

The sloppiness seems to be purely in your mind.

-- 
Henning Makholm "Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig!"

Re: Debian UK

[Stephen Frost]

* 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

[MJ Ray]

Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way we price this stuff has always been based on selling it as cheaply
> as possible, while making the numbers round for convenient change at Expos,
> and aiming to do just better than break-even [...]

How can anyone define a not-for-profit business if that's not one?
You want to raise enough money to break-even, so aim just higher.
That activity of DUS is a business.

The other part, holding money for debian, does get a few donations.
DUS as a whole is more than just that, though.

> One could seek sponsorship for the stand, but that has it's own risks to
> the independence of Debian.

Wasn't the stand in ".org village sponsored by UKLINUX.NET" for
a few years now?  Thanks to them for their generous sponsorship.
It's a big help to a lot of projects and some of the
most interesting exhibits. http://www.linuxexpo.org.uk/

-- 
MJR/slef


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[MJ Ray]

Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Things have gotten muddled though and that's the problem.  There's a
> number of issues here:

Thanks for the fresh eyeballs. Here's my take:

> 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 [...]

1, 3 and 6 can go together IMO. 4 should never happen for debian.

2 and 3 should not go together unless all businesses can use the name
(perhaps with a reasonable and non-discriminatory(!) standard). That
would be quite a shift from the old position, but may be welcome.

I don't care about 5 either way, as long as it's clear to donors
if grouped with 1 and people know what their money is spent on.

There's also "public appearances as Debian" which should be
avoided by licensees.

> 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.

I have no problem with business. I have worked for businesses
since I was ~14, with a small break 1995-6 (I think). The "evil"
thing was introduced to the thread by someone else, not me, but
DUS is the first business I've been told I joined without asking!
That may qualify as "evil" even if nothing else does... :-/

> [...] 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. [...]

http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/info says "Debian does not sell
any products" -- how did that come about?  I can trace it back
to Feb 1999 by James A. Treacy with a request for comments to
go to debian-www, but I didn't find any comments there.

Thanks,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)

[MJ Ray]

Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Precisely what personal details do
> you think D-UK holds about you, either correct or incorrect?

How is DUS recording its membership? I can't think of a way
for it to do so without either dumping data from db.d.o (are
businesses allowed to do that?) or holding personal details.
Correction welcome.

-- 
MJR/slef


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]