Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
Josh King wrote: Hi, I searched Google and the archives for this, but never found a solid answer. I, along with a few others, would like to start a website using the Debian name in the domain (we're using DotDebian.org as a working name for right now). The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user friendly forums, how-to's etc. This will focus mainly on users who have been using one of the Debian based distros (i.e. Knoppix, MEPIS, etc.) and want to migrate their systems over to Debian GNU/Linux itself. We plan to post a disclaimer stating that we are not endorsed nor affiliated with Debian or SPI. All content on the site will be licensed under the applicable Debian or GNU accepted licenses, meaning all original content of any kind generated or developed by or for the site will be free as in beer and freedom. If this is acceptable use, do we need any type of official permission from Debian, or may we simply go ahead with the plan as laid out? Also, is it acceptable to use the "Open Use" logo as part of any graphics on the site? Thanks in advance. Josh FWIW, the idea is being scrapped anyway in favor of supporting the existing sites. Thanks. Josh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:58:46AM +, Andrew Saunders wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the "Debian > > Free Stuff Guidelines". It merely makes it clear that documentation is > > included in "software", at least as far as the SC is concerned. > > I don't think the GR's numerous removals or substitutions of the word > "software" support this argument. I removed or substituted it precisely to stop this fucking stupid argument about the definition of "software". Kindly stop perpetuating it anyway. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
On 11 Feb 2005 01:15:42 GMT MJ Ray wrote: > The FSF have a vague definition of what they consider > free *documentation* and the main difference with free > software is "I don't believe that it is essential for > people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles > and books." http://gnu.hands.com/philosophy/free-doc.html Yes, and no reason at all is provided to explain *why* this permission should be considered as not essential. More precisely, no reason to explain *why* this permission should be considered less important than the permission to modify programs... :-( > Unfortunately, that even applies to articles which are > permanently attached to FSF's "free documentation" manuals. And this makes things to get even worse... :-( > > Making a DFDG will need at least one GR Without counting that we then would need one different set of guidelines for each of the following: music, images, animations, novels, poems, , ... > and it would need to > be weaker than the DFSG if it's going to accommodate the FSF > position, Yes, and I've not yet seen *any* convincing argument that documentation should get weaker freedom criteria than programs! Actually I have neither seen a good argument that documentation and programs should have *different* freedom criteria... As a consequence, we should IMHO stick to DFSG for all works. > which means the border needs to be tightly controlled > so as not to permit non-free software. There's not been anyone > yet who's come up with a reliable quick test to seperate > "software" and "documentation" (not surprising, as I think > they're overlapping sets), I agree that programs and documentation are overlapping sets and the boundary is rather blurry. The same applies to other categories of works... > so each case would want consensus > built and that's a scary amount of work, especially to support > some other group's totally arbitrary and inconsistent position. "Arbitrary and inconsistent" is a good description, sadly... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpaheU1PMvSY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the "Debian > Free Stuff Guidelines". It merely makes it clear that documentation is > included in "software", at least as far as the SC is concerned. I don't think the GR's numerous removals or substitutions of the word "software" support this argument. > You can change your vocabulary if you want, but I certainly don't like > the idea of giving way to the people trying to change the language to > suit their claims that freedom isn't important for documentation. Good for you, but how is this relevant to what I wrote? I claimed no such thing, and my own change of vocabulary is idential to that which has already been approved in the portions I quoted from the GR. -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:38:07AM +, Andrew Saunders wrote: > I likewise believe that documentation is a subset of software, but the > interminable debates on the topic convinced me that GR 2004-03's > approach to resolving the ambiguity is the correct one - e.g. changing > "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" to "1. Debian will remain > 100% free" and making references to free *works* as opposed to free > *software*. I'm attempting to adapt my own use of the lingo > accordingly. This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the "Debian Free Stuff Guidelines". It merely makes it clear that documentation is included in "software", at least as far as the SC is concerned. You can change your vocabulary if you want, but I certainly don't like the idea of giving way to the people trying to change the language to suit their claims that freedom isn't important for documentation. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:20:20 -0800 (PST), MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] in light of the disagreements > > between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the > > GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[1]). > > That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're > lazy, but "free" is often a shorthand for "free software" here. On this occasion, the "shorthand" was quite deliberate. I likewise believe that documentation is a subset of software, but the interminable debates on the topic convinced me that GR 2004-03's approach to resolving the ambiguity is the correct one - e.g. changing "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" to "1. Debian will remain 100% free" and making references to free *works* as opposed to free *software*. I'm attempting to adapt my own use of the lingo accordingly. Good summary, though. -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:51:45 -0600, Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, our plan calls for more of a "portal" style setup. The forums > would be one part of several other areas (i.e. the usuals of news, > graphics/dekstop backgrounds, etc.). Additional features and areas will > be added as requested by the site's members. The central idea here is to > provide a portal that is flexable and is designed around the idea of > welcoming new users, and providing what they want/need to get started. With the exception of the graphics/desktop backgrounds, http://www.debianhelp.org seems to already offer this. > Is there another license then that should be used in place of the GFDL? > Creative Commons? Something else? The current consensus[1] appears to be that none of the Creative Commons licenses are DFSG-free. Concerning what should be used in the GFDL's stead, I concur with MJ's recommendations. > As for using the Debian name in a domain and site name, is such > permission required? If so, how can I obtain such permission? Provided that you're not using the name in association with any commercial venture[2], I really wouldn't worry about it. The likes of http://www.debianhelp.org, http://www.debianforum.de and http://www.aboutdebian.com have been happily making use of the Debian name for quite some time and have yet to incur the Project's wrath. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01193.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/01/msg00263.html -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there another license then that should be used in place of the GFDL? > Creative Commons? Something else? I think the usual advice is for simple contributions to be licensed under a permissive non-copyleft (like MIT/X11) and full manuals to be put under the GPL. Any licence which includes non-programs will probably do. The GPL defines "Program" to include non-programs! > As for using the Debian name in a domain and site name, is such > permission required? If so, how can I obtain such permission? You probably should check your local trademark law and database (for debian is a trademark in various places) and your domain registrar's terms and dispute advice. I'm not sure who grants trademark licences, but in debian I'd start with the debian-project list as advised by http://www.uk.debian.org/contact Personally, I think that as long as you're not selling other utilities or operating systems, and don't fall foul of your domain terms, there won't be a problem, but I'm not official. -- MJR/slef On the wrong end of legal trouble, but not a lawyer In an office, but not an officer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] in light of the disagreements > between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the > GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[1]). That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're lazy, but "free" is often a shorthand for "free software" here. Neither Debian nor the FSF claim the FDL to be a free *software* licence. The disagreement is whether that's important or even sensible. The FSF have a vague definition of what they consider free *documentation* and the main difference with free software is "I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books." http://gnu.hands.com/philosophy/free-doc.html Unfortunately, that even applies to articles which are permanently attached to FSF's "free documentation" manuals. Making a DFDG will need at least one GR and it would need to be weaker than the DFSG if it's going to accommodate the FSF position, which means the border needs to be tightly controlled so as not to permit non-free software. There's not been anyone yet who's come up with a reliable quick test to seperate "software" and "documentation" (not surprising, as I think they're overlapping sets), so each case would want consensus built and that's a scary amount of work, especially to support some other group's totally arbitrary and inconsistent position. I think that's a summary. -- MJR/slef http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
Andrew Saunders wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:04:08 -0600, Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user friendly forums This part sounds like unnecessary duplication of effort. There are already a great many such forums in existence, not least http://forums.debian.net. What would be gained by creating yet another? Well, our plan calls for more of a "portal" style setup. The forums would be one part of several other areas (i.e. the usuals of news, graphics/dekstop backgrounds, etc.). Additional features and areas will be added as requested by the site's members. The central idea here is to provide a portal that is flexable and is designed around the idea of welcoming new users, and providing what they want/need to get started. We plan to post a disclaimer stating that we are not endorsed nor affiliated with Debian or SPI. All content on the site will be licensed under the applicable Debian or GNU accepted licenses, meaning all original content of any kind generated or developed by or for the site will be free as in beer and freedom. Sadly, in practice this means that there'd be no guarantee as to the DFSG-freeness of the content at all, in light of the disagreements between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[1]). [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html Is there another license then that should be used in place of the GFDL? Creative Commons? Something else? As for using the Debian name in a domain and site name, is such permission required? If so, how can I obtain such permission? Thanks, Josh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:04:08 -0600, Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user friendly forums This part sounds like unnecessary duplication of effort. There are already a great many such forums in existence, not least http://forums.debian.net. What would be gained by creating yet another? > We plan to post a disclaimer stating that we are not endorsed nor > affiliated with Debian or SPI. > All content on the site will be licensed under the applicable Debian > or GNU accepted licenses, meaning all original content of any kind > generated or developed by or for the site will be free as in beer and freedom. Sadly, in practice this means that there'd be no guarantee as to the DFSG-freeness of the content at all, in light of the disagreements between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[1]). [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
