Debian Trademarks Summary

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

I've been a bit disappointed to read things like "Debian (through SPI)
lacks, however, a Policy regarding the use of trademark" recently, so
I've collected some relevant links and text at
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/trademarks.html

Highlights:
* Debian has trademark licensing policies...
* ...and a trademark licensing delegate to SPI;
* spi-trademark actually reports to spi-board now; and
* there's a draft trademark license that we've been waiting for the
project to do something with it for many months (mentioned on-list
Sep 2005 and on planet May 2006 AFAICT), so please don't blame -legal
or SPI for our delays.

Posted to -legal for info, but most replies to -project only please.
If you know of more national registrations, or other updates and
corrections to the summary, please email me directly.

Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

Anthony Towns <aj.RemoveThis@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> It's likewise nice to see we're back to "-legal" not being a mailing
> list, but an unconstituted advisory body that manages to be a
> responsible body, somehow.
>
> Yeesh.

The distinction above is clearly being made for sarcastic purpose. I
still don't understand it, though.

Can you please, as DPL, explain what point is being made here? Outside
the context of this discussion about trademarks.

What do *you*, as DPL, think debian-legal should be, and how is it
currently different to that ideal?

--
\ "I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the |
`\ best." -- Oscar Wilde |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj RemoveThis @azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
[...stuff...]
> What do *you*, as DPL, think debian-legal should be, and how is it
> currently different to that ideal? [...]

Please check your facts before posting: aj is not DPL since 2007-04-17.
http://www.au.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001

His answers may be interesting as an ftpmaster, but as I understand it
from the log, he's not usually handling NEW and isn't the only ftpmaster
handling moves, so his strange ideas aren't fatal.

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

MJ Ray <mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop> writes:

> Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > What do *you* [Anthony Towns], as DPL, think debian-legal should
> > be [...]
>
> Please check your facts before posting: aj is not DPL since
> 2007-04-17. http://www.au.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001

Whoops, you're right. A brain lapse on my part, thanks.

--
\ "I got contacts, but I only need them when I read, so I got |
`\ flip-ups." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Michael Poole · External Since: Apr 12, 2004 Posts: 135

Anthony Towns writes:

> -legal is a mailing list; it doesn't have opinions or any authority, and
> hasn't any form of formal delegation or membership, and as a consequence
> has no accountability. It can't be assigned blame for anything, because
> it's not an entity with any responsibility or accountability.

Everything else you say is true, but the fact that one cannot
*defensibly* assign blame to a group has seldom stopped people from
assigning blame to groups before -- even when the viewpoint or action
only represents a minority of the group. I could draw any number of
examples from world politics; Debian politics are not so different.

Michael Poole

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Anthony Towns <aj.DeleteThis@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> [...] but when either group purports to be stating official
> Debian policy, or starts attacking the people who do make such policy,
> that becomes actively harmful to the purpose of this list and the goals
> of the project.

But, despite writing that lists can't be assigned blame, here we go again!

The *group* attacks the policy-makers, does it? Where? *It's a mailing
list.* It doesn't get pissed off, it doesn't get happy, it doesn't get
sad, it doesn't laugh at your jokes... it just resends emails!

For the avoidance of doubt, -legal didn't attack aj for making not much
progress on the debian trademark as DPL, or for the SPI board he advised
failing to consider the trademark policies its trademark committee
drafted. I did, and I give my opinion only, as mentioned in almost every
sig and web site I post.

I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying
to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner. The most
significant progress seemed to be the delegation of trademark and
copyright instruction to Branden Robinson (which I linked in the summary),
but then those things seemed to return to DPL control again somehow.
Has the delegation ended or what?

Probably the simplest way forwards is to post the four policies drafted
so far, then choose between them, with any minor amendments. I'll check
whether I can make the fourth one public and then do that.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Anthony Towns <aj DeleteThis @azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: [...]
> Gosh, what fun it is to trade pointless insults on a mailing list.

I feared that was your view. Roll on list-admins.

[...]
> This was, of course, more than you ever did to help define a trademark
> policy, which consisted of complaining that nobody was doing anything,
> then not providing any support when anyone was doing anything.

TTBOMK, I've complained that it's taking a long time to progress, not
that nobody was doing anything.

I offered support to at least two of the drafters, but drafters seem to go
AWOL after the first public draft (or one even seems to have gone before).
There has been a succession of attempts to create a policy, in different
forums and requested by different people - I now know of five unfinished
attempts in the last three years and I suspect there were probably more
before that. Did the drafters know of those that went before? Maybe they
didn't get the briefing or support they needed from the project leaders?

So I suggest the problem is not in defining or DD support, but in
management or communication. Now I'm trying to connect the various
lists that should be communicating about this (spi-board, spi-trademark,
debian-legal, debian-project among them) to help this complete, but I'm
very cautious about treading on toes, because I know I hold a minority
view on this and I know how frustrating it is for an interested party
to be mistakenly excluded from this sort of process.

I'm well aware that my views on trademarks (available to all, harmable
by none) are not the consensus view, so I probably shouldn't draft this
policy. Another reason is my bloody terrible record on GR drafting in
general, although I think that's partly an artefact of something else.

Why no elected leader yet has led this thing that sorely needs leadership
is beyond me. Some leaders who should have been managing this drafting
seemed keener on money than this irreplaceable asset.

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Anthony Towns <aj DeleteThis @azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying
> > > to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner.
>
> You know, beyond the initial offensiveness, this is actually a pretty
> remarkable statement.
>
> In 2006, we had:
> - a resolution on the DFSG-free status of the GFDL

which pulled a decision out of thin air, ignoring problems = not fun.
In any case, wasn't that before the 2006-7 DPL term?

> - a resolution of the licensing problems preventing us from
> distributing Java at all, including, eventually, legal advice
> via SPI to that effect

I think this is about Java-in-non-free? Non-free is not fun IMO and
that happened as a fire-first, ignore policy about asking on debian-legal
and get legal advice later, which is also not fun.

> - DFSG-free updates to creative commons licenses

where CC decided to tell us what debian believes. Not fun, but when the
DPL shows such contempt, why wouldn't CC?

> - new draft of the GFDL resolving Debian's other concerns

A draft does not fix bugs. Maybe it will do when released. FSF missed
various due dates, but DPL was curiously silent. Not fun.

That draft is still in the terrible FSF Web-2.Null comments system,
which is also not fun.

> - a resolution on how we approach sourceless firmware

where we agreed to ignore some bugs, didn't we? Necessary, but
not fun for most people.

> - Java licensed under the GPL

Announced and praised, but not done in 2006. Not fun.

> - a recommendation to SPI on a free copyright license and
> more free trademark handling for our logos that's since been
> acted on, and is now just pending an announcement by the DPL

Still pending. Still not fun.

> All of those have been causing problems for Debian users for years; if
> you don't find getting actual solutions to those sorts of legal issues
> "fun", maybe you're in the wrong business.

*Actual* solutions instead of the above mix of pending, announced, draft
possible/maybe *future* solutions might have been fun. If anyone found
the above events fun, that's disappointing if not surprising. If a DPL
thinks all of the above were actual solutions, they're definitely in
the wrong business!

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org