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

Hi.

Summary:

Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.

Process:

We (Debian, me specifically) are about to ask Free Software
Conservancy for legal advice - specifically whether there is anything
wrong with this proposed letter.

If the advice is favourable, and subject to comments we get from SPI,
we will sign this letter on behalf of Debian and we would like the SPI
Secretary to sign it on behalf of SPI.

We will need approval from the SPI Board. I doubt there would be any
problem with this, but I thought I should let you know.

I will CC the Board on the request I make to our legal counsel and ask
them to send you a copy of the advice we receive.

Background:

Debian was recently asked by a vendor of Debian CDs to help them
out with an issue relating to EANs. An EAN is the (number
represented by a) barcode which is used to identify physical products
at the point of sale.

Some large online trading platforms prefer everything they sell to
have an EAN where possible. (Presumably this makes their database
management easier or something.) It appears that they particularly
don't want their clients to be selling without an EAN, items that do
have an EAN.

And they want (for some reason) to ensure that products sold without
EANs, which bear trademarks, are sold in that way only with the
consent of the trademark holder. I assume that this is part of their
efforts to try to ensure their clients do not breach trademarks.

After investigating the issues, we (Debian) don't think we want to
issue EANs (in part because Debian provides data files, not physical
embodiments, which probably should not have EANs).

I drafted the letter you find below.

I have now been delegated by the Debian Project Leader to take care of
this issue.

Thanks for your attention.

Regards,
Ian.

=== 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

=== email from trading platform support desk to a Debian vendor ===

From: Support Vendeur ****
To:***
Subject: RE:[CASE ****] Demande de courrier

Dear Seller,

Thank you for contacting ***. My name is **** and it has been a
delight to talk with you on the phone. Once again, thank you for
taking the time to answer me. It is my pleasure to assist you with
your query related with your EAM exemption application.

As regards as your case, I can see that you would like to products from
the brand Debian without having to buy EAN codes.

Please note that in order to do that, as you are not the manufacturer of
the concerned products, you need to apply for an EAN exemption approval.

In order to have your application processed, the fields below should be
populated in the form.

Estimated annual revenue
Condition of your product
Company website
Company description
Brand to be exempted and seller connection to the brand
How do you upload your listings
Number of products needing UPC or EAN exemptions
Justification for UPC or EAN exemptions
Name
Email
Phone
Company name

You also need to prove a letter coming from your manufacturer that
states those facts:

-your manufacturer doesn't provide you any EAN codes.
-your manufacturer allows you to send his products without any EAN
codes.
-your manufacturer is not going to buy any EAN code during the 2 next
years.

Incomplete applications will not be processed. EAN or UPC exemptions
cannot be granted for single ASINs sold in product bundles or in bulk.
With the exception of antique products, the condition of an item for
which an EAN or UPC exemption is requested must be New.

Please find more info about those EAN exemptions requests by clicking on
the following link: ***

No answer is require from your side, but if you have further questions
concerning your sales, please never hesitate to contact *** again [...]

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

On 08/31/2017 07:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Summary:
>
> Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
> do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.

The vendor should apply for their own EANs. If Debian/SPI applies for
them it will provide a communication of validity to the vendor
("Official Debian Images").

+1 for Debian not allowing an external vendor to appear as the official
distributor (unless they actually are).

JD

>
>
> Process:
>
> We (Debian, me specifically) are about to ask Free Software
> Conservancy for legal advice - specifically whether there is anything
> wrong with this proposed letter.
>
> If the advice is favourable, and subject to comments we get from SPI,
> we will sign this letter on behalf of Debian and we would like the SPI
> Secretary to sign it on behalf of SPI.
>
> We will need approval from the SPI Board. I doubt there would be any
> problem with this, but I thought I should let you know.
>
> I will CC the Board on the request I make to our legal counsel and ask
> them to send you a copy of the advice we receive.
>
>
> Background:
>
> Debian was recently asked by a vendor of Debian CDs to help them
> out with an issue relating to EANs. An EAN is the (number
> represented by a) barcode which is used to identify physical products
> at the point of sale.
>
> Some large online trading platforms prefer everything they sell to
> have an EAN where possible. (Presumably this makes their database
> management easier or something.) It appears that they particularly
> don't want their clients to be selling without an EAN, items that do
> have an EAN.
>
> And they want (for some reason) to ensure that products sold without
> EANs, which bear trademarks, are sold in that way only with the
> consent of the trademark holder. I assume that this is part of their
> efforts to try to ensure their clients do not breach trademarks.
>
> After investigating the issues, we (Debian) don't think we want to
> issue EANs (in part because Debian provides data files, not physical
> embodiments, which probably should not have EANs).
>
> I drafted the letter you find below.
>
> I have now been delegated by the Debian Project Leader to take care of
> this issue.
>
>
> Thanks for your attention.
>
> Regards,
> Ian.
>
> === 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
>
> === email from trading platform support desk to a Debian vendor ===
>
> From: Support Vendeur ****
> To:***
> Subject: RE:[CASE ****] Demande de courrier
>
> Dear Seller,
>
> Thank you for contacting ***. My name is **** and it has been a
> delight to talk with you on the phone. Once again, thank you for
> taking the time to answer me. It is my pleasure to assist you with
> your query related with your EAM exemption application.
>
> As regards as your case, I can see that you would like to products from
> the brand Debian without having to buy EAN codes.
>
> Please note that in order to do that, as you are not the manufacturer of
> the concerned products, you need to apply for an EAN exemption approval.
>
> In order to have your application processed, the fields below should be
> populated in the form.
>
> Estimated annual revenue
> Condition of your product
> Company website
> Company description
> Brand to be exempted and seller connection to the brand
> How do you upload your listings
> Number of products needing UPC or EAN exemptions
> Justification for UPC or EAN exemptions
> Name
> Email
> Phone
> Company name
>
> You also need to prove a letter coming from your manufacturer that
> states those facts:
>
> -your manufacturer doesn't provide you any EAN codes.
> -your manufacturer allows you to send his products without any EAN
> codes.
> -your manufacturer is not going to buy any EAN code during the 2 next
> years.
>
> Incomplete applications will not be processed. EAN or UPC exemptions
> cannot be granted for single ASINs sold in product bundles or in bulk.
> With the exception of antique products, the condition of an item for
> which an EAN or UPC exemption is requested must be New.
>
> Please find more info about those EAN exemptions requests by clicking on
> the following link: ***
>
> No answer is require from your side, but if you have further questions
> concerning your sales, please never hesitate to contact *** again [...]
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****

Hi!

On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 15:19:18 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Summary:
>
> Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
> do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.

> === draft letter ===
[…]
> 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.
[…]

> === email from trading platform support desk to a Debian vendor ===
>
> From: Support Vendeur ****
> To:***
> Subject: RE:[CASE ****] Demande de courrier
[…]
> You also need to prove a letter coming from your manufacturer that
> states those facts:
[…]
> -your manufacturer is not going to buy any EAN code during the 2 next
> years.
[…]

I'm not sure whether this is splitting hairs, but wouldn't issuing a
letter stating those 2 years make any similar request in the near
future that demands a 2 years span, require reissuing a new letter?
Perhaps it should be 3 or 4 years instead? One possible problem is that
this means we cannot change our minds for a "long" time if need be, but
I think there is indeed consensus that we'd not want to do that. But of
course with these things you never know what will happen in 1 year! :)

Thanks,
Guillem

Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> I'm not sure whether this is splitting hairs, but wouldn't issuing a
> letter stating those 2 years make any similar request in the near
> future that demands a 2 years span, require reissuing a new letter?
> Perhaps it should be 3 or 4 years instead? One possible problem is that
> this means we cannot change our minds for a "long" time if need be, but
> I think there is indeed consensus that we'd not want to do that. But of
> course with these things you never know what will happen in 1 year! :)

This is a valid point, but I was imagining we would reissue this
letter as needed. In practice an old letter which is still on our
website is likely to be accepted by the relying parties, I would have
thought.

Ian.

Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> On 08/31/2017 07:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
> > do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
>
> The vendor should apply for their own EANs. If Debian/SPI applies for
> them it will provide a communication of validity to the vendor
> ("Official Debian Images").
>
> +1 for Debian not allowing an external vendor to appear as the official
> distributor (unless they actually are).

I'm not sure I follow everything you said there, but it sounds to me
like you are happy with my proposed letter. If I have misunderstood
then I'm afraid you'll have to clarify...

Regards,
Ian.

On 08/31/2017 11:32 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
>> On 08/31/2017 07:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
>>> do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
>>
>> The vendor should apply for their own EANs. If Debian/SPI applies for
>> them it will provide a communication of validity to the vendor
>> ("Official Debian Images").
>>
>> +1 for Debian not allowing an external vendor to appear as the official
>> distributor (unless they actually are).
>
> I'm not sure I follow everything you said there, but it sounds to me
> like you are happy with my proposed letter. If I have misunderstood
> then I'm afraid you'll have to clarify...

We are good.

Thanks,

JD

>
> Regards,
> Ian.
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Summary:
>
> Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
> do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
>
>
> Process:
>
> We (Debian, me specifically) are about to ask Free Software
> Conservancy for legal advice - specifically whether there is anything
> wrong with this proposed letter.

I would ask the Software Freedom Law Center. The Software Freedom
Conservancy is another umbrella organization similar to SPI.

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Ian Jackson writes ("Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> We (Debian, me specifically) are about to ask Free Software
> Conservancy for legal advice - specifically whether there is anything
> wrong with this proposed letter.

I am picking this up again now after a long delay. Sorry about that.
We had a reply from Conservancy. They weren't able to offer us formal
legal advice. On an informal basis they did say that they didn't see
anything wrong with the letter, but cautioned us that they weren't
experts in the relevant areas of law or the relevant jurisdictions.

Personally I am sufficienty reassured that we should draft this
letter. The DPL delegated this matter to me, but: Chris, are you now
content ? Would you be happy with me putting my name on the bottom of
this letter ?

SPI: are you willing to have the SPI Secretary sign this letter ? If
not, who should we ask for further legal advice ? Michael Schultheiss
suggested SFLC but I don't think that any involvement of Debian or SPI
with SFLC is or would be appropriate.

If this all meets with everyone's approval I will make a nice-looking
pdf, with some logos, for the SPI Secretary and me to sign and scan.
We can then put the final scan on our website somewhere.

Thanks,
Ian.

> === 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 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

Hi Ian,

> Chris, are you now content ? Would you be happy with me putting
> my name on the bottom ofthis letter ?

Thanks for running with this. I am happy with the content and with
your name at the bottom.

(Happy to sign it too if that's needed or helpful for whatever
reason.)

Best wishes,

--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` lamby(at)debian(dot)org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-

Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> Hi Ian,
> > Chris, are you now content ? Would you be happy with me putting
> > my name on the bottom ofthis letter ?
>
> Thanks for running with this. I am happy with the content and with
> your name at the bottom.
>
> (Happy to sign it too if that's needed or helpful for whatever
> reason.)

It might make it more convincing if you were to sign it, indeed.

I will wait a bit now to see what SPI says.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-04-19 13:53]:
> SPI: are you willing to have the SPI Secretary sign this letter ? If

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you're talking about the
draft letter you posted 31 Aug 2017 15:19:18. There have been no
changes since that post, right?

> not, who should we ask for further legal advice ? Michael Schultheiss
> suggested SFLC but I don't think that any involvement of Debian or SPI
> with SFLC is or would be appropriate.

--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Martin Michlmayr writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-04-19 13:53]:
> > SPI: are you willing to have the SPI Secretary sign this letter ? If
>
> Just to make sure we're on the same page, you're talking about the
> draft letter you posted 31 Aug 2017 15:19:18. There have been no
> changes since that post, right?

That's right. For your convenience my mail
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:53:34 +0100
quoted the thing again.

There's one bugfix: "the the" should read "the".

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-04-19 16:38]:
> > Just to make sure we're on the same page, you're talking about the
> > draft letter you posted 31 Aug 2017 15:19:18. There have been no
> > changes since that post, right?
>
> That's right. For your convenience my mail
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:53:34 +0100
> quoted the thing again.
>
> There's one bugfix: "the the" should read "the".

Ok, thanks.

I'll discuss with the SPI board.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Ian,

> > Thanks for running with this. I am happy with the content and with
> > your name at the bottom.
> >
> > (Happy to sign it too if that's needed or helpful for whatever
> > reason.)
>
> It might make it more convincing if you were to sign it, indeed.

It's likely to save a pointless round-trip to tick a hypothetical
"box" on Amazon's side. Debian does not have the monopoly on
bureaucracy, after all…

Regards,

--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` lamby(at)debian(dot)org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-

Ian Jackson wrote:

> That's right. For your convenience my mail
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:53:34 +0100
> quoted the thing again.

> There's one bugfix: "the the" should read "the".

No bugfix for "anticpate" or "predjudice"?

(I also wonder about "Nor do ... do so on Debian's behalf". Looks odd to
me, but then I'm not a native English speaker; maybe it's just my
ignorance.)

--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile

Alvaro Herrera writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > There's one bugfix: "the the" should read "the".
>
> No bugfix for "anticpate" or "predjudice"?

Thanks for the proofreading :-). I have run it through a spillchucker
too.

> (I also wonder about "Nor do ... do so on Debian's behalf". Looks odd to
> me, but then I'm not a native English speaker; maybe it's just my
> ignorance.)

This is correct, I think.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Martin Michlmayr writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> I'll discuss with the SPI board.

When should we expect to hear from you ?

Thanks,
Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-05-02 16:42]:
> > I'll discuss with the SPI board.
>
> When should we expect to hear from you ?

I'm not sure. I had a deadline a few days ago and I'm just catching
up on my TODO list.

How urgent is this?

--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Martin Michlmayr writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> > Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-05-02 16:42]:
> > > I'll discuss with the SPI board.
> >
> > When should we expect to hear from you ?
>
> I'm not sure. I had a deadline a few days ago and I'm just catching
> up on my TODO list.
>
> How urgent is this?

I don't know. It has already been dragging on for a long time.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Hi,

Le 03/05/2018 à 13:30, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Martin Michlmayr writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
>>> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-05-02 16:42]:
>>>> I'll discuss with the SPI board.
>>>
>>> When should we expect to hear from you ?
>>
>> I'm not sure. I had a deadline a few days ago and I'm just catching
>> up on my TODO list.
>>
>> How urgent is this?
>
> I don't know. It has already been dragging on for a long time.

As the topic has been opened on 2017, I would be glad to finish it this
month if possible.

Thank you very much for all your work.

Regards

> Ian.
>

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

MENGUAL Jean-Philippe writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> Le 03/05/2018 à 13:30, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > Martin Michlmayr writes ("Re: Debian trademark, EAN, proposed letter, SPI heads-up"):
> >>> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-05-02 16:42]:
> >>>> I'll discuss with the SPI board.
> >>>
> >>> When should we expect to hear from you ?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure. I had a deadline a few days ago and I'm just catching
> >> up on my TODO list.
> >>
> >> How urgent is this?
> >
> > I don't know. It has already been dragging on for a long time.
>
> As the topic has been opened on 2017, I would be glad to finish it this
> month if possible.

Martin, sorry to press you, but when should we expect to hear from
SPI, please ? Or should we keep polling every few weeks ?

Thanks,
Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-05-24 18:39]:
> Martin, sorry to press you, but when should we expect to hear from
> SPI, please ? Or should we keep polling every few weeks ?

I'm sorry for the delay. I was close on catching up on my TODO list
when I wrote my last email but since then I had some important
personal things to work on.

I'll look into this next week and propose how to move it forwards.

(And please always feel free to ping me in private email when
something is outstanding regarding this or other SPI matters.)
--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2018-04-19 14:53]:
> > Thanks for running with this. I am happy with the content and with
> > your name at the bottom.

> I will wait a bit now to see what SPI says.

I'm happy for SPI to sign this. Can you please prepare the official
letter?

(Sorry for the delay.)
--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

* Martin Michlmayr <tbm(at)cyrius(dot)com> [2018-07-07 00:52]:
> I'm happy for SPI to sign this. Can you please prepare the official
> letter?

Any update on this?

--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

Hi,

Here is the draft which had been proposed by Ian a long time ago, and
seemed accepted by the Debian staff:

Do yu need some special formatting/layout? iirc some small typo/wording
were changed, but the essential is here.

Regards

=== 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

=== email from trading platform support desk to a Debian vendor ===

signature_jp_2
Logo Hypra JEAN-PHILIPPE MENGUAL
DIRECTEUR TECHNIQUE ET QUALITÉ
102, rue des poissonniers, 75018, Paris
Tel : +331 84 73 06 61 <tel:+33184730661> Mob : +336 76 34 93 37
<tel:+33676349337>
jpmengual(at)hypra(dot)fr <mailto:jpmengual(at)hypra(dot)fr>
www.hypra.fr <http://www.hypra.fr/>
Facebook Hypra <https://www.facebook.com/hyprasoftware/> Twitter Hypra
<https://twitter.com/Hypra_> Linkedin Jean-Philippe
<https://fr.linkedin.com/in/jean-philippe-mengual-800133135>

Le 18/08/2018 à 21:33, Martin Michlmayr a écrit :
> * Martin Michlmayr <tbm(at)cyrius(dot)com> [2018-07-07 00:52]:
>> I'm happy for SPI to sign this. Can you please prepare the official
>> letter?
> Any update on this?
>