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]
