Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:11:31PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict Debian Labs to groups that are doing RD rather than sales. Do you want to limit consulting work too though? Well, if we don't, then any Debian consulting business can call themselves Debian Labs which is not what I'd like to see (if they do 100% consulting and don't put any work into Debian). Well, note that consulting and putting work into Debian aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and can be one and the same. You can get a consulting job that says write this program for me, GPL it, and stick it in Debian, eg. Even if you're just admining a bunch of Debian systems, you're likely to end up writing useful scripts, or fixing bugs, or doing other development work, and wanting to contribute that back to Debian. Perhaps consulting should be possible, as long as RD is the main focus? I'd say more that RD should be the main focus, and the other stuff doesn't much matter at all. Not even Debian stable CDs? Why not, exactly? What conflict of interest do you see here? Well, okay. They can surely sell Debian CDs in order to fund more RD. (But they shouldn't call themselved Debian Labs in order to be in a better position to sell CDs in order to make a profit.) Why not? Would you want to know that your $10 for a Debian CD goes to fund Foo Debian Labs rather than Joes Pizza? Isn't that the way the FSF works? (But they still shouldn't call themselves Debian Labs unless they actually are doing useful stuff) Sure, I have no problem with this. But Debian (the project) doesn't make money out of what we do Sure we do. SPI collects it for us. and you could argue the same should apply to a Debian Labs (this is a big difference between Debian and Red Hat/Fedor, btw). Mmm. I'm inclined to think that encouraging investment isn't necessarily a bad thing here. is their any salary limit? How about if they do it cheaper than any competing support organisations, but still make a profit? Then they should clearly use the money (profit) to fund more RD. How about to pay back the guy who provided the rooms, computers and connectivity when they started? Or the salaries while it was operating in the red? How about compensating for the risk said guy undertook, given the possibility that the research labs wouldn't ever become profitable and he wouldn't get any money back? Rather than just defending profits, let me put this another way. Having donations just go straight from user's hands into shareholders' pockets without ever providing any motive force to improve Debian isn't useful. An alternative way of addressing this is just by providing better information to everyone; eg letting users see what projects each Lab is working on, whether they're a for-profit or not, seeing how much has already been donated and how much has been donated in the past, what their history of completing projects has been like, which developers are employed there, stuff like that. At worst, that sort of information at least gives the people working there the ability to say Hey, you got $1.3M in donations last year, how come we got a pay cut, and had to solder our broken motherboards back together ourselves?. (Note that I don't really think this is of any interest to HP -- it's likely we'd have enough requirements to be a nuisance, and there wouldn't be all that much money coming through anyway; but they're a useful example) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda pgpWP3b8CWxby.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:40:46PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:58:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing. True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- AIUI, in .au the purposes have to cover everything that the organisation does, though. You could set up a charitable group that educates people on how to use Debian, but that's all it can do. Or you could setup a group to help the disabled by setting up Debian systems, but again, that's all it could do. Which is nice and all, but not really very exciting. What about organizations that have a large set of vague goals like SPI?[1] It seems to me like we could do a whole hell of a lot with in those guidelines. Again, AIUI, the organisations goals have to directly align with the particular charitable purposes set out. If you do other things you're not a charity, whether you do the charitable things or not. (While I'm certainly no expert on this, I have talked to an accountant about it) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda pgpIiA5ZRGk7O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:58:22PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: IANAL, but I believe that according to US law there are limits on who non-profits can give money to: if the lab is not a non-profit corporation, SPI could not (in my understanding) give money to the lab. OTOH, SPI could surely purchase services? Could somebody with a better understanding of the law help here? I can try. SPI is a 501(c)(3) in the United States. This means that donations from within the US are tax deductible. SPI doesn't pay taxes and you can deduct your donation to SPI from your taxes according to a set of rules the government lays out. You're right is assuming that this tax exempt status introduces some restrictions on how we can spend money. At Debconf3 I gave the follow example: Developer X creates a trivial MP3 sorting script and throws it into a Alioth project. She then registers it as an SPI member project and donates USD 50K to SPI (marked for her project). She writes 50K off her taxes. She then has SPI buy her a car or a new computer or send her a pile of cash she uses to throw a coke orgy or something -- all tax free. The major rule of thumb is that the members of the organization can't benefit financially from the organizations decisions. Now, if SPI wants to hire a consulting organization that's fine. If we hire one unconnected to any SPI member there's no room for a problem. If we hire one that is owned by a member, we need to be able to prove that she is charging my normal rates and that those rates are competitive, and such. Additionally, 503(c)(3)'s can't spend money directly on politics. This means we can't spend money lobbying congressmen and women or endorsing candidates or donate to their campaigns. It's a little bit of a fuzzy line though because we can *educate* people on a set of issues and, AIUI, on how politicians stand in regards to an issue. You're correct in your description. We can hire HP to do work for us but we can't provide a way for HP to invest in itself tax-free. It can sometimes be a fine line. Does that clarify things at all (or at least clarify that things are a little bit unclear)? :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpCDxVtc5leD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:15:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:47:15PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2003-09-20 17:07]: By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, HP Debian Labs. I'd also have no problems with this. However, I also think that the Debian Labs should not be used to make a profit. I think a HP Debian Labs should be of a similar nature as HP Labs which is a research facility. If there were a simple way to restrict the use of the name to research and non-profit use within a for-profit organization, I don't think I'd have a problem with it but... I suspect that HP shareholders think that they're using HP research labs to make a profit. I also agree with this point. Rather than just using the lab for profit, I am worried about organizations using the Debian name to create create a competitive advantage for their company in a for-profit area where they are competing with other Debian-based companies or in a way that could discourage other companies from supporting Debian professionally. If we can come up with a realistic, clear, and legal way of making this distinction within a for-profit company, my reservations would be much allayed. Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict Debian Labs to groups that are doing RD rather than sales. Do you want to limit consulting work too though? These are only the first of many good questions you ask. I think that one simple answer is: restrict the name Debian Labs to non-profits and then don't worry about setting stringent policy about what they can and can't do and when they can and can't use the name. If they don't charge (or perhaps charge but not make a profit?) then they can of course install Debian on systems. Isn't charging for your time making a profit? No. Non-profits can offer consultancy services and charge. The just can't funnel that benefit back to undue benefit of their members. What if someone's employed by the same company to work part-time in a Debian Lab, and part time doing Debian support, together making up a single full time job? What benefit does that arrangement have over being full time employed in a single job, that does research in a Debian Lab and does Debian support? If your point was that this is overly complex arrangement, I agree. Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor particular developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar Yes, I think we could encourage people to give 1/2 of their donation to SPI And 1/2 to a Debian Lab. I think encouraging people to give some portion of their donations to SPI is a great idea. The rules for donations are usually something like requiring they further the organisations interest, and aren't a quid-pro-quo arrangement. So if you go to a charity ball and pay $1000 to attend, that's not tax deductible because it was a payment for something. The extra $1000 that you donate when they bring a hat around is a donation. The $1000 raffle ticket you buy isn't. I'm not sure what US law is like in these terms. We can check with our lawyer if the answer is important and if SPI wants to go in this direction. The main issue for tax is likely to be ensuring that donations aren't used as a tax avoidance scheme. Someone saying to HP, hey, instead of paying you directly, I'll make a donation to your labs via SPI. muahahaha! will get us all into trouble. And if we can avoid that, we'll probably avoid the other problems in so doing. Agreed. FWIW, I'm in favour of requiring Debian Labs to be RD focussed and to employ full time researchers, to provide debs of everything they develop, to focus on getting their successful research into main, and letting pretty much everything else develop as best it may -- having a focus doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else. I'm also in favour of letting people do tax-deductible donations to Debian Labs via SPI, if it's possible. Obviously Debian Labs will have to say no to some contracts if they want to keep the moniker -- ones that say here's $5M; now make all your staff wear Microsoft suits and ties, and play Windows Solitaire all year, eg. But we shouldn't force them to ever say no to money for working on things that actually improve Debian, imo. I think we're in agreement in most areas. I think the situation I'd advocate is something like: SPI is very careful about who we license the Debian trademark to. We choose people that have done work with Debian in the past and that we have reason to believe will do a good job in the future. We have a strong bias toward organizations that are doing RD in ways that help Debian but use the guidelines of Non-Profit status to demonstrate how the money will be spent and that's it's not going to go into creating a
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:43:18PM -0700, Derek Neighbors wrote: Is the only currently discussed benefit use of the Debian trademark? If so, do you want to consider other benefits? Some thoughts that come to mind would be allowing them some greater say in project issues. However, personally I would hate to see that. Luckily for you, I don't see anyway that our Constitution would allow for this sort of influence in any sort of codified fashion. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpzIeSAVDYqv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:58:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing. True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- AIUI, in .au the purposes have to cover everything that the organisation does, though. You could set up a charitable group that educates people on how to use Debian, but that's all it can do. Or you could setup a group to help the disabled by setting up Debian systems, but again, that's all it could do. Which is nice and all, but not really very exciting. What about organizations that have a large set of vague goals like SPI?[1] It seems to me like we could do a whole hell of a lot with in those guidelines. Regards, Mako [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/goals -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpEllS3Eu3Y4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Sorry to be replying to this so late but the part of this thread that is living on drew me back into this where I realized I had not answered. On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:21:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I am curious about why? You state you don't want to see it, but don't give any supporting argument. I myself am always very suspicious as to the motive of for profit companies appearing to leverage Free Software projects. Even for profit companies is a bit of a huge class of things to be upset with. Most of them are just trying to earn some profit to live from. Maybe for-dividend companies contain nearly all of the ones we should worry about? Then again, excluding them is likely to involve friendly fire on our allies. I'm not upset at for profit companies (I work for them and sometimes think about starting one or two). In speaking of non-profits, I was thinking more in line the line of some sort of legal charitable organization status that, at least in the US, does not restrict the ability to charge money and make a profit on a given transaction but does restrict dividends and some of the other ways that money can be spent. This use of non-profit is closer to NGO in many situations. I think this was just confusion about terminology. The contract/agreement that the entity using the Debian Labs name signs or agrees to, should likely be a legal document drafted by lawyers. Why would Debian want to increase the sums given to lawyers? It should be drafted as simply as possible by people concerned and then secured by lawyers under advice. SPI has access to pro-bono legal advice from some very good law firms including one lawyer working specifically on trademark issues. Of course, you are correct in saying we should list our goals and terms as well as we can first. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpCiAc4GjvVm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2003-10-09 17:15]: I suspect that HP shareholders think that they're using HP research labs to make a profit. Sure, but they don't make a profit *directly*. They're not selling any stuff, they just do RD. Other parts of HP sell what they've developed. Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict Debian Labs to groups that are doing RD rather than sales. Do you want to limit consulting work too though? Well, if we don't, then any Debian consulting business can call themselves Debian Labs which is not what I'd like to see (if they do 100% consulting and don't put any work into Debian). Perhaps consulting should be possible, as long as RD is the main focus? If I've got $50k to spend getting, say, Gnucash improved to better handle Australian accounting rules [0], does it make any real sense to exclude Debian Labs from any possiblity of working on it? If you do want No, I think that's perfectly valid. Labs), but they shouldn't use HP Debian Labs direcetly to sell any services or products. Not even Debian stable CDs? Why not, exactly? What conflict of interest do you see here? Well, okay. They can surely sell Debian CDs in order to fund more RD. (But they shouldn't call themselved Debian Labs in order to be in a better position to sell CDs in order to make a profit.) (For reference, I joined Debian specifically because it doesn't discriminate against people trying to make money out of free software, even by building proprietary software on top of it -- indeed, we go so far as to explicitly support such uses in a few ways) Sure, I have no problem with this. But Debian (the project) doesn't make money out of what we do, and you could argue the same should apply to a Debian Labs (this is a big difference between Debian and Red Hat/Fedor, btw). is their any salary limit? How about if they do it cheaper than any competing support organisations, but still make a profit? Then they should clearly use the money (profit) to fund more RD. I agree (presuming the .5:.5 ratio is determined by the contributor, and can be 0:1 or 1:0 etc). Yes, it should be up to the contributor. Debian can just make a suggestion; what they do is completely up to them. FWIW, I'm in favour of requiring Debian Labs to be RD focussed and to employ full time researchers, to provide debs of everything they develop, to focus on getting their successful research into main, and letting ... Solitaire all year, eg. But we shouldn't force them to ever say no to money for working on things that actually improve Debian, imo. Right, I agree. (I know I didn't respond to all questions, but I don't actually have answers for all of them. I think your comments are incredibly useful for this discussions, though, and hope others will comment on them.) -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, HP Debian Labs. Hello, everyone, I would like to suggest that names tell what the thing they are naming is. If something is Debian, then it is OK to call it 'Debian' if it is not, then it is not. This would have advantage that from a thing's name one could infer what that thing is. So if i'lld see 'HP Debian Labs', i would immediately know that this was - part of Debian community, and contributing to Debian's goals - officially intended by HP's central management to be the only Debian Labs in all of HP, at least for duration of period for which Debian granted use of its name to these Labs. - not spending a major part of their efforts on anything else than advancement of Debian (motivated by that being beneficial to HP ofcourse). Frankly, something like 'HP Springfield Debian-compatibility Labs' or 'University of Oklahoma department of Debianology' seems more likely to me. I came to this thought by noticing that many softwares have too grandiose names, because they form such a large part of their developers's lives that they are named by a big name by them. (i think 'info' is an example of this) I hope this thought may be fruitfull for the Debian trademark discussion. have a nice day, Siward
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: .au law is that you can't make donations for work on Debian tax deductible. Why not? Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing. As opposed to just doing something socially beneficial. They can also be named specifically by the minister. You can be a non-profit easily, but that only means you don't have to pay tax yourself, not that donators can claim a deduction. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
Charitable organisations have to fulfill a particular set of rules; like
being educational, helping the homeless, that sort of thing.
True, but generally that list isn't exclusive -- you just have to work
harder convincing the tax people that your activity merits tax-exempting
donations. For instance, developing a free text-to-speech system would
probably qualify (it benefits blind people), while a free device driver
for controlling industrial robots probably wouldn't.
Disclaimer: Again, that's the approximate situation in Germany.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
:EOL: /E-O-L/ n. [End Of Line] Syn. for {newline}, derived perhaps from
the original CDC6600 Pascal. Now rare, but widely recognized and
occasionally used for brevity. Used in the example entry under {BNF}.
See also {EOF}.
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On 2003-10-11 21:58:30 +0100 Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disclaimer: Again, that's the approximate situation in Germany. The situation is probably similar in most EU states by now. In England and Wales (and probably rest of UK), benefit of the community or benecom is a sufficient charitable purpose, as long as it undertakes no disqualifying tasks, AIUI. Other countries, like Australia, may have different rules, which I think covers the previous message. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:58:22PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: On 2003-10-09, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice? non-free/proprietary stuff, better not. =20 Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in non-free? non-free is not part of Debian. Mmm, slogans. Given that... Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah. How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal doesn't? It would be unusual if debian-legal had actually taken a look at it? On this issue, I think a small amount of things like this would be OK, but too much would be bad. ...you think that stuff that's not even supported by Debian is okay, why do you think that having Debian Labs people even occassionally providing software that's not part of Debian is an isue? (If you really want to mindlessly trade slogans, then how about although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use ? Why is it a good idea for Debian Labs people to not abide by all of the social contract?) There are tax implications here [1]. The money goes: donator * - SPI * - Lab - employee * - expenses - profits * with each * representing a point at which the government could end up taking a cut. SPI being a tax-exempt non-profit allows the first to *'s to disappear, if the appropriate rules are followed. ... Could somebody with a better understanding of the law help here? (Maybe that's you, aj, I'm just not sure.) Note the .au in my email address. I don't have a lot of idea about US law. .au law is that you can't make donations for work on Debian tax deductible. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda pgpNY1W64BEg9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
.au law is that you can't make donations for work on Debian
tax deductible.
Why not?
In Germany, the way this works is that an organization sets up a list of
goals, and if these fall into some categories which define tax-exempt
status, the state grants that status to the organization (for a limited
time, subject to review); any activity of the organization which furthers
these goals is OK, thus donations earmarked for those activities are
also tax exempt.
Free Software isn't on the list of state-sanctioned goals per se, of
course, but some related goals and activities are (free public education,
for instance).
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
INCOME VAX - What one shouts when the VAX is delivered.
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:47:15PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2003-09-20 17:07]: By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, HP Debian Labs. I'd also have no problems with this. However, I also think that the Debian Labs should not be used to make a profit. I think a HP Debian Labs should be of a similar nature as HP Labs which is a research facility. I suspect that HP shareholders think that they're using HP research labs to make a profit. Certainly it'd be reasonable to restrict Debian Labs to groups that are doing RD rather than sales. Do you want to limit consulting work too though? If I've got $50k to spend getting, say, Gnucash improved to better handle Australian accounting rules [0], does it make any real sense to exclude Debian Labs from any possiblity of working on it? If you do want to limit forms of income like that, then you're going to end up limiting Debian Labs to big companies that can support research groups internally, or to groups that can't pay Debian hackers reasonable wages. HP Debian Labs could do development, research and market research. HP could of course provide support for Debian and sell it, and also publizie their Debian expertise (including ther HP Debian Labs), but they shouldn't use HP Debian Labs direcetly to sell any services or products. Not even Debian stable CDs? Why not, exactly? What conflict of interest do you see here? (For reference, I joined Debian specifically because it doesn't discriminate against people trying to make money out of free software, even by building proprietary software on top of it -- indeed, we go so far as to explicitly support such uses in a few ways) Is it appropriate for developers to hang Debian Labs on the doorknob to their bedrooms or studies? I guess not really; it should be bigger than that. How big is a difficult question, though. Well, obvious possible distinctions from the doorknob scenario would be: a) More than one researcher b) Full-time, paid researchers c) Accredited researchers Is there a problem with a small business setting up a Debian Lab by hiring a single Debian developer to do largely undirected Debian development, at $200k/year, under the general philosophy that if Debian's improved they'll be able to sell more hardware to more people, or make higher profits otherwise? If so, that rules out (a). (b) and (c) are probably not significantly different in effect. Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or If they don't charge (or perhaps charge but not make a profit?) then they can of course install Debian on systems. Isn't charging for your time making a profit? What if someone's employed by the same company to work part-time in a Debian Lab, and part time doing Debian support, together making up a single full time job? What benefit does that arrangement have over being full time employed in a single job, that does research in a Debian Lab and does Debian support? For example, I think it would be nice if they would go around and show Debian in schools and help them set it up. If someone does support for schools fulltime, should they get to call themselves a Debian Lab? If they don't make a profit? If they don't pay their staff (ie, it's all volunteer)? If they do pay their staff, is their any salary limit? How about if they do it cheaper than any competing support organisations, but still make a profit? I think Debian Labs should emphasise the research component, and set a minimum level of quality, but leave worrying about profits to the management and shareholders. non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice? non-free/proprietary stuff, better not. Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in non-free? Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah. How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal doesn't? How about stuff that's under NDA and thus isn't free now, but will be free later, potentially like AMD-64 stuff? How about non-free stuff that they're trying to reimplement, or be compatible with? If they're working on Samba, or Abiword, or Wine, or Plex86? Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor particular developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar Yes, I think we could encourage people to give 1/2 of their donation to SPI And 1/2 to a Debian Lab. I agree (presuming the .5:.5 ratio is determined by the contributor, and can be 0:1 or 1:0 etc). There are tax implications here [1]. The
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On 2003-09-20 23:34:03 +0100 Derek Neighbors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Benj. Mako Hill wrote: | not want to see commercial entities calling themselves Debian-anything What are commercial entities? As far as I can tell, nearly all DDs engage in some forms of commerce. I am curious about why? You state you don't want to see it, but don't give any supporting argument. I myself am always very suspicious as to the motive of for profit companies appearing to leverage Free Software projects. Even for profit companies is a bit of a huge class of things to be upset with. Most of them are just trying to earn some profit to live from. Maybe for-dividend companies contain nearly all of the ones we should worry about? Then again, excluding them is likely to involve friendly fire on our allies. The contract/agreement that the entity using the Debian Labs name signs or agrees to, should likely be a legal document drafted by lawyers. Why would Debian want to increase the sums given to lawyers? It should be drafted as simply as possible by people concerned and then secured by lawyers under advice. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:19:52PM -0700, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: You weren't explicit about the non-profit aspect in the message in any sort of categorical way but I want to step forward and say that I do not want to see commercial entities calling themselves Debian-anything and am not sure from a trademark perspective, this would be a wise choice at all. By contrast, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with, eg, HP Debian Labs. As far as the trademark stuff goes, I think it'd be a problem if we forbade companies from saying that they work on Debian; sure, we should use the name and logos and such to make it clear what sort of association projects have with Debian (and if it's misleading people as to what's actually going on like Trusted Debian was, or if there's no relationship at all like there is with cybersquatters, then we should act). But we're meant to be supporting our users, and not discriminating against them, so forbidding commercial entities outright from being involved just doesn't seem like a good first step. Hope that made sense. Anyway, it's questionable what we want to have Debian Labs mean. Do we want it just to mean that there's a bunch of developers working in the same building on Debian stuff? Don't Progeny, HP and SkoleLinux already do all that? Is it appropriate for developers to hang Debian Labs on the doorknob to their bedrooms or studies? Do we want it to imply something more than that, like people working in the Debian Labs should be employed fulltime to develop Debian? Is it enough that all the stuff they develop gets packaged and put in Debian? Or should they be employing fulltime one or more Debian developers without having any control over what they work on? If the latter, who should be saying what they work on? Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice? Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor particular developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar organisations to manage such donations to minimise the amount of tax that's cut from it? Are there any other benefits that a group should or could receive from being called a Debian Lab ? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda pgpTxw5b5MUhn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Towns wrote: | then we should act). But we're meant to be supporting our users, and not | discriminating against them, so forbidding commercial entities outright | from being involved just doesn't seem like a good first step. | | Hope that made sense. I agree 100%. I think that good criteria will be critical to help ensure that Debian is not abused going into this type of adventure, but outright discriminatory behavior should be avoided. | Do we want it to imply something more than that, like people working | in the Debian Labs should be employed fulltime to develop Debian? Is it | enough that all the stuff they develop gets packaged and put in Debian? | Or should they be employing fulltime one or more Debian developers | without having any control over what they work on? If the latter, who | should be saying what they work on? | Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as | development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems | and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to | be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or | non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB | stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice? I think all of these are good questions, which answers should come in form of the guidelines/criteria of being granted the Debian Labs name. | Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular | Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor particular | developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar organisations | to manage such donations to minimise the amount of tax that's cut from it? I think doing this is more than Debian or SPI probably wants to get into. The labs should be responsible for getting their own funding. Debian should be more concerned about getting users to fund Debian/SPI than the labs. If SPI/Debian in turn wanted to take some of their funds and donate to a particular lab, I suppose that would be up to them. I just think the _administration_ of funds for others is an ugly venture that would suck more time than it would return in benefit. | Are there any other benefits that a group should or could receive from | being called a Debian Lab ? Is the only currently discussed benefit use of the Debian trademark? If so, do you want to consider other benefits? Some thoughts that come to mind would be allowing them some greater say in project issues. However, personally I would hate to see that. One thing I have admired about Debian is that it really is individuals running the show, not groups, organizations or corporations. Giving these *labs* any sort of inherit benefit over an individual Debian developer would be dangerous (imo) to the balance of Debian. It would be great to hear others opinions on the subject and potential other benefits that wouldnt upset balances of power. Derek Neighbors GNU Enterprise http://www.gnue.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/bNgGHb99+vQX/88RAp/oAJ9yiIjdEZhoxnFl8gvT60LLHRH2XgCgqmB8 gI+QArHpcz9YGXXLuF/MCV0= =0Jef -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030916 17:16]: I would like to ask for comments on this idea. Are people comfortable with organizations calling themselves foo Debian Labs assuming that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set of guidelines (which are yet to be developed). That sound pretty good to me; organization which do good work for Debian should definitly be honoured and allowed to show their support (and advertise Debian ;) Also, is there anyone interested in helping develop these guidelines? Taking a look at my Todo-List: No, sorry. But I would like to read and comment it. Yours sincerely Alexander pgp1jJYiCBsdA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am not a Debian developer so probably have no right to interject opinion here, but that have never stopped me in the past. ;) Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: | They are currently in the process of setting up a non-profit | foundation and have approached me and some SPI members to discuss the | name of this foundation. Given their close relationship to Debian, | they wanted permission to call the foundation Debian Foundation | Norway. This would increase the visibility of the Debian name, and | make it more visible that Skolelinux is based on Debian. I think great caution should be exercised here. One thing Debian appears to take very seriously is it's social contract and the evaluation of the licenses of the packages it puts in main. I think that Debian should not blindly jump on an increased marketing opportunity solely because it is available. I think this mail is proof that it is going through a review/thought process which is great. :) | I like what Skolelinux does and, knowing the people involved in the | project, I'd have no problem per se of them using the Debian name. The problem becomes, once you open the gate for them, have you opened pandora's box? What happens when someone who you dont like what they do or the people involved with the project and they want to use the Debian name? | However, I hold the belief that Debian should not pay developers. This is a smart thing. | It's quite unfortunate that they cannot use the Debian name because of | this reason since the Skolelinux project does an excellent job and | could generate good publicity for Debian when they emphasize their | relationship to Debian through their name. There are many good Debian The other problem becomes, what happens when the relationship sours? Money has a funny way of affecting peoples behavior. When they have a significant amount of people basing their livelihood on some funding source and that source asks them to do things not in alignment with Debian. What happens then? | based projects out there and many users are not aware that what they | use is actually based on Debian (KNOPPIX is a good example for this). | So I tried very hard to come up with a compromise and in the end had | an idea which I think offers a good balance. What I suggest is that | certain organizations should be allowed to use the name Debian Labs | in their name. Hence, Skolelinux could create its foundation with the | name Skolelinux Debian Labs [4]. This would clearly show that a) | they are doing Debian related work and b) they are not Debian itself. I think this a possible solution, with many things that need definition. | We could create a Debian Labs brand and publicize what it means for | an organization to carry that name. Since we own the Debian | trademark, we can control who is allowed to use the Debian Labs | brand. We have to develop a set of guidelines for this. So in some | sense Debian has some control over what those organizations do. On | the other hand, they are largely autonomous of Debian and can do with | their money whatever they want -- that way, Debian wouldn't need to | decide who to hire, etc, and could avoid the problems described in the | mail mentioned above. This is where you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. You absolutely need these guidelines. I think there needs to be clear guidelines as to what such an organization has to do in order to be acceptable to use the Debian Labs name. Also, there has to be some guidelines as to acceptable behavior after they have received that right. There needs to be procedures that all revocation of the name as well. This will be no easy task mind you. From what I have seen on the debian-legal list and debian-policy list it is hard to get a large number of Debian developers to agree on such matters, but I think it is the only way you can approach it without shooting yourself in the foot. | I would like to ask for comments on this idea. Are people comfortable | with organizations calling themselves foo Debian Labs assuming | that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set | of guidelines (which are yet to be developed). Also, is there anyone | interested in helping develop these guidelines? I would be interested in being involved in such guidelines. Derek Neighbors GNU Enterprise http://www.gnuenterprise.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQE/aG7hHb99+vQX/88RApDcAJ44saMpGWvn7F+yWjDJtQ/+8VSvrwCYhLwy Ud2SdvAuCogD3sknLfollg== =66rH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Le Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 01:16:28AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader écrivait: an idea which I think offers a good balance. What I suggest is that certain organizations should be allowed to use the name Debian Labs in their name. Hence, Skolelinux could create its foundation with the name Skolelinux Debian Labs [4]. This would clearly show that a) they are doing Debian related work and b) they are not Debian itself. I like this idea. The similarity with RedHat Labs doesn't hurt imho. I would like to ask for comments on this idea. Are people comfortable with organizations calling themselves foo Debian Labs assuming that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set of guidelines (which are yet to be developed). Yes, it looks like something doable. Also, is there anyone interested in helping develop these guidelines? I'm not interested in doing it, but I'm interested in it and would probably comment on anything that comes out of it. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader, 2003-09-16 17:20:18 +0200 : [...] I would like to ask for comments on this idea. Are people comfortable with organizations calling themselves foo Debian Labs assuming that they are doing Debian related work and generally conform to a set of guidelines (which are yet to be developed). Also, is there anyone interested in helping develop these guidelines? I like the idea, but I could understand if people were still a bit uncomfortable with it. I myself am not quite sure I'd like such a prominent place for the word Debian (but I haven't thought really deeply about that yet). Just a quick idea for them (us?): these Labs could be called something like foo D-Labs (which would call for a footnote explaining what the D stands for, hence giving us more room for publicity than just the Debian in the name). Or, equally straight-from-my-imagination-without-checking-brain, foo Swirl Factory or something around these lines. Again, a footnote would be called for. Just suggestions for nitpickers, obviously. The basic idea appeals very much to me. Roland. -- Roland Mas C c ee lm re q j l a l l iè e . -- Signatures à collectionner, série n°1, partie 3/3.
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Hi,
Roland Mas wrote:
I myself am not quite sure I'd like such a
prominent place for the word Debian (but I haven't thought really
deeply about that yet).
Neither have I, much, but I _do_ like the prominence of Debian.
IMHO the name Something Debian Labs, with a footnote that Debian is
a trademark of SPI and that SDL is an independent organization / part of
something-else, would work very well.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
:copy protection: n. A class of methods for preventing incompetent
pirates from stealing software and legitimate customers from using it.
Considered silly.
pgp4uK2rtouNp.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Skolelinux and the Debian Labs idea
Martin Michlmayr wrote: What I suggest is that certain organizations should be allowed to use the name Debian Labs in their name. Hence, Skolelinux could create its foundation with the name Skolelinux Debian Labs [4]. Sounds good to me. - Jim Van Zandt
