Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up

[Samuel Lelièvre]

If you're at the polishing stage, here are some minor comments.

Quoting the draft letter in the initial post in this thread (comments
further down).

=== draft letter ===

   RE DEBIAN - EUROPEAN ARTICLE NUMBER (EAN)

   To Whom It May Concern

   The Debian Project ("Debian") and Software In The Public Interest
   Inc ("SPI") wish to make known that:

   1. Debian, through its Trusted Organisations including SPI, owns and
   controls the trademark "Debian" in various jurisdictions.

   2. Debian does not provide European Article Numbers (EANs).  Nor do
   any of Debian's associated organisations do so on Debian's behalf.

   3. Debian and SPI give public permission for products embodying
   Debian's software and documentation to be sold, according to the
   Debian Trademark Policy (which can be found at
   https://www.debian.org/trademark).  That policy does not make any
   requirement about EANs.  Therefore (provided the the policy is adhered
   to) we have no objection to Debian branded products being sold without
   EANs.

   4. Debian do not anticpate this situation changing in the next 2
   years.  Specifically, we do not expect to be issuing EANs within the
   next 2 years.

   5. Please therefore allow vendors of Debian merchandise to trade,
   notwithstanding any lack of EANs for those products.

   6. This is without predjudice, of course, to our right to enforce our
   trademarks against anyone found violating our trademark policy.  We
   are simply saying that lack of an EAN is, in itself, completely fine.

   Signed

   for the Debian Project          for Software in the Public Intere

=== end draft letter ===

As someone else suggested, I would slightly rephrase item 2.

Original phrasing:

   2. Debian does not provide European Article Numbers (EANs).  Nor do
   any of Debian's associated organisations do so on Debian's behalf.

Proposed rephrasing:

   2. Debian does not provide European Article Numbers (EANs).  None
   of Debian's associated organisations do on Debian's behalf either.

In item 3, I would suppress the comma in "to be sold, according to":

   3. Debian and SPI give public permission for products embodying
   Debian's software and documentation to be sold, according to the
   Debian Trademark Policy (which can be found at

The plural "Debian do not" in item 4:

   4. Debian do not anticpate this situation changing in the next 2
   years.  Specifically, we do not expect to be issuing EANs within the
   next 2 years.

should be made singular, I think (and fix anticpate -> anticipate):

   4. Debian does not anticipate this situation changing in the next 2
   years.  Specifically, we do not expect to be issuing EANs within the
   next 2 years.

...especially since item 1 reads "Debian [...] owns and controls" and
item 2 reads "Debian does not".

Fix predjudice -> prejudice in item 6.

   6. This is without prejudice, of course, to our right to enforce our

Kind regards,
Samuel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20180508/549bc390/attachment.html>