Distribution quotes of the week

There is no precedent for requiring Debian packages to avoid trademark infringement as a condition of inclusion in the archive. I am very much opposed to anything that would require Debian to remove potentially trademark infringing logos from packages "until we have agreement with the trademark owners". This is entirely the wrong way around - we should always assume that our use is permitted wrt trademark law unless either a) a court ruling determines otherwise, or b) we decide it's not in our interest to fight a lawsuit over the matter and as a project decide to stop using the mark. In no event should the ftpmasters be preemptively deciding that such works should be excluded from the archive pending an agreement unless so directed by Debian's counsel in the course of litigation.

Well, while we're putting stakes in the ground, I suppose I'll hammer mine in there as well. I completely disagree to the point that I would take that to a GR.

If we lag behind in features that are good for GNU/Linux users (who are the vast majority of our users) just because users of some ports can't have them, we might force users to choose other distros, renouncing to some of the unique features that Debian has to offer (freedom, quality, open development, etc.). This of course goes both way: we should not hold back non-Linux features on non-Linux kernels because the Linux kernel lack them. Adopting that as a general principle would mean offering, overall, the intersection of features available in all our ports, something which is doomed to reduce with the growth of the number of ports.

I'm not denying that change has no cost. But upkeep has a cost as well. Just because my father-in-law can keep his 40+ year old snow blower operationally tweaking it doesn't mean its the most valuable use of his time compared to buying a newer one and learning how to maintain the newer design. Then again his stated mission in life isn't to innovate snow blower design and be on the cutting edge of snow removal.