Re: [Debconf4] Re: SPI Workshop at Debconf4

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:24:16PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> 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.

Sure. I can update people on what the current status is. We can then
work, during the BOF and after, to come with answers/proposals along
these lines that we can present to the SPI board and community.

> 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.

The logo license does not give unrestricted use. It gives open use
*while referring to Debian.* We'll have people with legal experience
at Debconf to talk about this.

> > - 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 ...

You can become a contributing member of SPI relatively easily if
you've contributed to a Free Software project.

> 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 are great questions and there are ones I hope to address in PoA.

Regards,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako(at)debian(dot)org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/