On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Craig Small wrote: > That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package. > Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a > "tentacles of evil" problem. Trademark isn't all about trust, it's > also about control. We, unfortunately, cannot ignore it but we have > to deal with it our way. > > All of the sections in the DFSG are important. We could of, when > framing the DFSG, gone the easy path and not had a section 8 but we > didn't. To me the requirements that we will not accept a > Debian-specific trademark arrangement is as important as not accepting a > Debian-specific license for exactly the same reasons. > > Both stances mean we cannot package stuff at times, or we have to fudge > it with non-free. That to me is a perfectly acceptable trade-off. > I completely agree with you that there will be problems with this stance > but Debian is more than a technical group cranking out .deb files.
Definitely agreed, Debian-specific trademark licenses should not be acceptable for main. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GbVmZ2UZo_hf3V7f9FUUB0Cuh_H=�[email protected]
