SPI Workshop at Debconf4

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Benj. Mako Hill said on Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:08:31AM +0200,:

 >  - Supporting Debian outside of the US: SPI is based in the United
 >    States and can only offer tax benefits to individuals donating
 >    there. How can Debian/SPI work with other organizations, existing
 >    or new, to give the same level of support outside of the US? What
 >    has worked in the past and how can it be expanded and improved?

Should/can the SPI have a branch/chapter/affiliates in other (non US)
countries is the ideal way of  asking this question.

 >  - Trademark issues: There have been a number of issues raised in the
 >    last year with "abuse" of the Debian name (people incorrectly
 >    claiming to be related to the project) that SPI's policy of
 >    trademark enforcement has been able to halt. At the same time,
 >    enforcing a trademark introduces a level of risk to the
 >    organization that some people found alarming. Some others just
 >    oppose the idea of a trademark.

The Debian community  has to decide whether the  term `debian' has any
monetary (or non monetary) value for itself, that is, the community. 

Trademark or  no trademark, if  we perceive it  to have *any*  kind of
value, and  if we remain mute  spectators to (mis) use  by others, our
rights will be eroded. 

Hence,  the   current  policy  of   having  two  logos   and  allowing
unrestricted use of one, calling it the `unofficial logo' and imposing
conditions on use of the other, is a very wise idea.

 >  - Debian/SPI relationship: Some people, including the president of
 >    SPI, have suggested that a new "Debian Foundation" should replace
 >    or emerge from SPI. Other have argued that it's just a name change
 >    and can be accomplished within the current framework -- or that
 >    little needs to change at all.

I'm not a member of either ... 

If SPI is not limited to supporting the creation and distribution of a
free operating  systems, *and*  if the other  activities of  this body
conflict with those objective, there is a conflict of interest, and we
require two organisations.  If there  is no such conflict, what is the
need for two bodies?  Are there any administrative difficulties?

-- 

   "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
 		deserve neither security nor liberty"