Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
The stated goal of the trademark committee was to come up a policy
that was as permissive as possible (in the DFSG sense) while still
operating within what is required by trademark law. Unlike copyright,
failing to enforce or taking a completely permissive attitude
quote who=MJ Ray date=Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 12:56:10AM +0100
So, it looks to me like help is most needed with educating about
the debian trademark, drafting the more general trademark policy
and summarising to SPI's board and members. Corrections welcome.
Yes. Help would be welcome in all of
Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SPI trademark committee[3] still exists and still needs support from
Debian's Developers, all of whom are automatically eligible for SPI
membership[4] and can sign up to join its mailing list. Mako Hill and Greg
Pomerantz
* Benj. Mako Hill [Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:21:38 -0400]:
FWIW, I've also heard people complain that we have unfairly played up
our Debian roots. ;-)
Now I'm curious, can you give some background about this?
--
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Ara que ets la meva
Core Consortium is clearly in Debian's
interests, and I think someone should be looking into it with Debian's
interests at heart.
Just out of curiosity, what interests do you think the DCC Alliance has
that aren't in ours? If you don't know, have you asked?
As far as I can tell, the DCC Alliance
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
Hrm. leader@ cc'ed.
It's unclear to me exactly what sort of reponse you're soliciting, but I
did my best.
I don't think the Debian Core Consortium is clearly in Debian's
interests, and I think someone
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:53:05AM +, Andre Felipe Machado wrote:
This week, Sun Wah Linux talked about DCC Alliance:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,1845318,00.asp
Nonetheless, we believe that this activity should be carried out as much as
possible within the Debian Project. At this
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suggestion would be that the Debian trademark should be restricted to
novel names and not used in descriptive terms. Microsoft Debian ought
to be permitted - Debian T-shirts should not.
Does the Debian trademark cover clothing as a field of use? See
quote who=MJ Ray date=Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 09:32:44AM +0100
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suggestion would be that the Debian trademark should be restricted to
novel names and not used in descriptive terms. Microsoft Debian ought
to be permitted - Debian T-shirts should not.
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Greg Pomerantz tells me that guys still haven't talked yet about the
DCC and the Debian mark.
What happened about this? I'm not involved in any way, but I'm quite
interested.
-Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
quote who=Jonathan Carter date=Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:29:05AM +0200
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Greg Pomerantz tells me that guys still haven't talked yet about the
DCC and the Debian mark.
What happened about this? I'm not involved in any way, but I'm quite
interested.
AFAIK, Greg Pomerantz
* Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-15 14:20]:
trademark list this week. In terms of DCC, that will be up the DPL
and the SPI board who will, conveniently enough, be meeting tomorrow
IIRC.
David, can we get something on the agenda for this? I do not have a
proposal but I would like to
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exclusivity? As in, the idea of making a trademark license an
exclusive one in a given area or field? I think that would be a very
bad idea with Debian.
Think of it in terms of namespace pollution. We complain about packages
called Terminal, because it
Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess something like 2%-5% of the developer body as a whole is=20
involved in the DCC; I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what=20
proportion of Debian's extended userbase use distros involved in it)
For it to be
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re the organization formerly known as the Debian Core Consortium: No
need. We won't use the word Debian in the name--we'll call
ourselves the DCC Alliance, where DCC stands for Debian Common Core.
The comments on
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:02:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Ian Murdock wrote:
What does that mean exactly, to talk to Debian? The DPL is in
the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
participating organizations.
Which is to say, no one outside the partipating
Hello,
Until this moment, I guess there are some points to be solved with the
proposition and its nice ideas.
This week, Sun Wah Linux talked about DCC Alliance:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,1845318,00.asp
Nonetheless, we believe that this activity should be carried out as much as
possible
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does that mean exactly, to talk to Debian? The DPL is in
the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
participating organizations.
At Debconf (so some time after news of the DCC had appeared), the DPL
denied having been
quote who=MJ Ray date=Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:36:13AM +0100
There is a desirable position more liberal than the current
almost-no- -commercial-use do you agree?
I think we should be as permissive as we can be and as close the
spirit of sharing and reuse in free software while still keeping our
Ian Murdock wrote:
What does that mean exactly, to talk to Debian? The DPL is in
the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
participating organizations.
Which is to say, no one outside the partipating organisations is in the
loop?
Isn't this a good opportunity for
* Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-28 11:46]:
At DebConf, it was announced that there are somewhere around 130
different distros based on Debian. Do you think that bringing some
of these closer together, and closer to Debian proper, is a bad
thing?
I agree that this is a good idea but
* Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-26 05:33]:
Re the organization formerly known as the Debian Core Consortium: No
need. We won't use the word Debian in the name--we'll call
ourselves the DCC Alliance, where DCC stands for Debian Common Core.
My buddies and me are going to create
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I agree that this is a good idea but I fail to see how this new
alliance will bring this about. Why do we need yet another 3rd party
to foster closer cooperation with Debian (instead of creating the
structures which are needed within Debian)? Do you seriously think
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-26 05:33]:
Re the organization formerly known as the Debian Core Consortium: No
need. We won't use the word Debian in the name--we'll call
ourselves the DCC Alliance, where DCC stands for Debian Common Core.
My buddies and me
Ian,
Greg Pomerantz tells me that guys still haven't talked yet about the
DCC and the Debian mark. I'll contact you off list with this phone/etc
since I don't have yours. I'd personally really like to get you guys
on the same page (or see what issues remained) before we tear this
apart on the
quote who=MJ Ray date=Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:17AM +0100
In general, I'm disappointed to see so little how do we harness
this new effort? and so much how do we stop them?
I don't think anyone here is trying to *stop* the effort. In fact, I
don't believe people have said much critical about
* Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-07 17:59]:
Do you seriously think that a new organization which hasn't
actually talked to Debian at all before being created will help
bring some of these closer to Debian proper?
What does that mean exactly, to talk to Debian? The DPL is in
the
quote who=MJ Ray date=Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:54:14AM +0100
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] a group of us decided a number of years ago to keep
consumers (and developers) from being confused by ensuring that
Debian referred only to our project and to our products. [...]
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if this organization is called Debian Core Consortium, it *is*
referring to Debian itself, isn't it?
That's my understanding. It's not claiming to be debian or
trying to use the name
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:59:26PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
That's probably the important case anyway. I'm not really bothered by
an organisation calling itself the 'Debian Core Consortium'. I am
bothered by somebody producing something that is called Debian
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if this organization is called Debian Core Consortium, it *is*
referring to Debian itself, isn't it?
That's my understanding. It's not claiming to be debian or
trying to use the name
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] a group of us decided a number of years ago to keep
consumers (and developers) from being confused by ensuring that
Debian referred only to our project and to our products. [...]
There are alternatives that some people support (e.g., allowing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
Uh, my response would be appropriate if Debian *did* have the trademark
policy Linus uses for Linux. It's basically ask first, get an official
submark before using
* Alexander Wirt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050724 12:58]:
Florian Weimer schrieb am Sonntag, den 24. Juli 2005:
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
Maybe you sould wait until its been more than a plan to do something before
crying about
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Trusted Debian was an open source project too and yet the Debian
project felt their use of the DEBIAN mark wasn't appropriate. There
is an effort going on to update the trademark policy (which will also
make it clearer
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Maybe it would be great to come up with something that can be used by
everyone interested. I'm thinking along the lines granting a license to
use Debian derived as part of the name for products / efforts to
create products derived
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050725 22:32]:
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Maybe it would be great to come up with something that can be used by
everyone interested. I'm thinking along the lines granting a license to
use Debian derived as part of
it is that it's an open-source project).
I have a little question...
Even if this organization is called Debian Core Consortium, it *is*
referring to Debian itself, isn't it?
Maybe I'm just missing the point, but... Wouldn't I be allowed[1] to
create a Debian Users Consortium?
daniel
[1] I'm not sure
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
In principle, I don't have anything against Debian spinoffs, but they
shouldn't use confusing names that suggest they are more Debian than
Debian itself (or something like that).
Or is this something Debian
su, 2005-07-24 kello 10:13 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
I'm not sure I have ever heard of Debian Core Consortium. Please don't
refer to new phenomena like that assuming everyone knows what you're
* Lars Wirzenius:
su, 2005-07-24 kello 10:13 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
I'm not sure I have ever heard of Debian Core Consortium. Please don't
refer to new phenomena like that assuming everyone
with
| Progeny on the Debian Core Consortium.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1836184,00.asp
They are overexcited, or eWeek is misquoting. It's Linux Core
Consortium.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :' :proud
:
| A spokesperson for Xandros said, Xandros is actively working with
| Progeny on the Debian Core Consortium.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1836184,00.asp
They are overexcited, or eWeek is misquoting. It's Linux Core
Consortium.
No there is something like the debian core consortium:
http
Florian Weimer schrieb am Sonntag, den 24. Juli 2005:
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
Maybe you sould wait until its been more than a plan to do something before
crying about names.
There isn't anything official yet about
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2005-07-24 kello 10:13 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
I'm not sure I have ever heard of Debian Core Consortium. Please don't
refer to new phenomena like that assuming
* Alexander Wirt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Florian Weimer schrieb am Sonntag, den 24. Juli 2005:
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
Maybe you sould wait until its been more than a plan to do something before
crying about names
Hi all,
Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 10:13:06AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they
using the name Debian?
In principle, I don't have anything against Debian spinoffs, but they
shouldn't use confusing names
* Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-24 07:25]:
As always, feedback welcome. We're not trying to step on any toes.
http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/debian-announce/msg00083.html
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-24 07:25]:
As always, feedback welcome. We're not trying to step on any toes.
http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/debian-announce/msg00083.html
Thank you, I'm aware of this. :-)
But I don't see anything in here that's
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Debian Core Consortium ideas]
No, actually, it's probably better to make sure those involved
understand the trademark issues *before* they go off and develop
advertising based off it, tell
work that way. You said in the prior message that
it's not going to be called Debian Core Consortium, that's good, as
whatever you call it *shouldn't* include the term Debian in it unless
you get an official submark of the Debian trademark from SPI. It's
possible that could be done but assuming you
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[Debian Core Consortium ideas]
[...]
Before babbling to the press using that name [...]
Quoting Ian:
| The Debian Core Consortium (it's not going be called that, but that's
| what the media has been
. You said in the prior message that
it's not going to be called Debian Core Consortium, that's good, as
whatever you call it *shouldn't* include the term Debian in it unless
you get an official submark of the Debian trademark from SPI. It's
possible that could be done but assuming you can just
that
it's not going to be called Debian Core Consortium, that's good, as
whatever you call it *shouldn't* include the term Debian in it unless
you get an official submark of the Debian trademark from SPI. It's
possible that could be done but assuming you can just use the Debian
trademark in advertising
* Ian Murdock:
The Debian Core Consortium (it's not going be called that, but that's
what the media has been calling us) is simply a group of companies and
nonprofits that build Debian derivatives banding together with a few
central goals:
Fair enough. But somehow nobody who is involved
a business (it's not even really a
consortium, since there won't be any formal organization behind
it--the best way to describe it is that it's an open-source project).
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You said in the prior message that
it's not going to be called Debian Core Consortium, that's
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ok, this is most unexpected, so I'm going to have to take
some time to consider my response. I can say with 100% certainty that
a trademark policy more restrictive than the one adopted by Linus
Torvalds for Linux isn't what the founder
57 matches
Mail list logo
