Re: [Debconf4] SPI Workshop at Debconf4

Greetings,

Again this year, I will be facilitating a workshop and discussion on
Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (SPI)[1] at Debconf[2].

As I did last year, I'd like to start the discussion before the
workshop on the lists so that folks with ideas, brainstorms, or
criticisms can participate now whether they'll make it to Porto Alegre
or not. My goal is to upload recordings and notes after the session to
bring those who could not be at Debconf back into the loop.

Here are a couple ideas to start people up (I am *not* advocating any
of these at this point personally. I'm just throwing them out to start
conversation):

- 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?

- Trademark issues: There have been a number of issues raised in the
last year with "abuse" of the Debian name (people incorrectly
claiming to be related to the project) that SPI's policy of
trademark enforcement has been able to halt. At the same time,
enforcing a trademark introduces a level of risk to the
organization that some people found alarming. Some others just
oppose the idea of a trademark.

- 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.

In terms of format, I like the idea of starting with a short
introduction to SPI, past and present, and then to open up the floor
for questions and discussions -- maybe broken up logically as the room
sees fit and splitting off into BOFs later in the week as necessary.

Please direct follow-ups to both debconf4 and spi-general (as the
M-F-T has been set). The lists have only partially overlapping
memberships, both of whom I believe this is on topic for.

Regards,
Mako

[1] http://www.spi-inc.org
[2] http://www.debconf.org/debconf4

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

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.

> - Trademark issues: There have been a number of issues raised in the
> last year with "abuse" of the Debian name (people incorrectly
> claiming to be related to the project) that SPI's policy of
> trademark enforcement has been able to halt. At the same time,
> enforcing a trademark introduces a level of risk to the
> organization that some people found alarming. Some others just
> oppose the idea of a trademark.

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.

> - 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 ...

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 willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
deserve neither security nor liberty"

[Benj. Mako Hill]
> - 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?

The Norwegian foundation SLX Debian Labs, where I am a board member,
would be happy to assist here. SLX Debian Labs is recently founded to
take care of the finances of the Debian Edu CDD project.

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/