Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Further, it's up to *Debian* to decide what uses of the logo reflect badly > on it and consequently should be disallowed because we don't wish to be > associated with them. Your above statement includes an implicit value > judgement about which sorts of activities Debian will or will not wish to be > associated with, which may not be at all representative of the views of the > project members at large.
Two things wrong with that: Firstly, much of this thread seems to be taken up by people saying that the project can't disallow things which we don't think reflect badly on debian but other people generally do. Why is this different? Secondly, if any debian developers think sweatshop-sewn shirts of cotton subsidised by one of the world's richest countries reflect well on the project, then that would be very disappointing and not common views among the wider population. When surveyed, people know that this is what they should do - for example, 8 out of 10 people say retailers should stock more products which help people in developing countries improve their standard of living (Shopping with Attitude survey, 2006) - although they're deterred by the high prices at present. But official debian shirts are a premium product and ethical sourcing shouldn't make as big a difference, proportionately. Also, few of the recent value judgements about licensing have been passed before the project members at large, even when there has been an objection, so why should this one, if there's no objection? 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
