Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I confess to being puzzled by this persistent use of the term "business" > here.
DUS is an enterprise generating income from commercial sale of goods. Whatever else you want to call it, "business" seems accurate. > AFAICT, the Debian UK Society does not have any employees that it > pays; The last discussion I remember of that was http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-uk/2004-July/thread.html#10019 and isn't conclusive, but I think you're correct. > it does not appear to hold any assets, except those which are held > in trust for Debian -- AIUI, the stated purpose for its creation; it has > no shareholders who stand to profit, either from dividends or from sale > of their shares; Neither of those stop it being a business. Some social enterprises share those features. Some members benefit from DUS money, but it's not a limited company with obvious and explicit shareholders. > 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 show 22.82 Photocopying 0.73 Debian expenses: DPL expenses 230.37 buildd hardware 135.14 > 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. How is DUS not a business? Not even a not-for-profit one? > (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. > It's still a fair question whether we want national non-profit > affiliates that hold assets on our behalf to use the Debian trademark, > but this "business" business looks like one bloodshot doozy of a red > herring. It's a pain to keep typing "unincorporated association that sells goods" but "charity" seems inaccurate at present and "society" seems to suggest to many that it's non-commercial. > > 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. > 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. DUS was kept quiet pre-launch and has automatic membership. The DPL should not allow DUS the debian trademark yet. -- 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]
