Hi there! Added events@d.o and the DPL to the Cc:.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:22:45 +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote: > The question about listing or not unofficial images vendors should not be > addressed > only to cdvendors@ team but, IMO, we need to involve at least the whole -www > team and the events/merchandise too. FWIW, all the Events team *should* be subscribed to -www as well, at least this was decided back in the past and officially announced (fair enough, by me...): <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c87tyg2g6ed.fsf%40gismo.pca.it%3e> I have a strong opinion on this matter: I would prefer not to list non-free "supporters", but then even I use non-free software on my Debian (Intel 3945ABG), so I completely understand that the above would simply be bad for our users. While I think this issue is restricted to installation images, or, better, "distribution of stuff in main", a similar situation could be seen for everything using the Debian Official Use Logo (specifically, everything with the *word*, not the swirl), both because the font and the logo itself are non-free: <http://bugs.debian.org/246784> <http://bugs.debian.org/587668> Strangely enough, nothing of the above is present in the wikipage, but it is in the main trademark page (linked from the main logo page): <http://wiki.debian.org/DebianLogo> <http://www.debian.org/trademark> I consider this situation a very bad mess, given that since 6.0.0/squeeze there is an "official" fork of the word 'debian' in the SpaceFun theme: <http://wiki.debian.org/DebianArt/Themes/SpaceFun> Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca PS1, my first action would have been to report this as a bug, not to be forgot, but then I was kind of lost about the package should be reported to. Feel free to do that yourself or ask me ;-) PS2, this could be included as part of a wider discussion about the relationship between Debian and "distributors", the merchandise part of which discussion is at: <http://bugs.debian.org/613832>
pgpZxh9H0INKM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
