Bug#660924: package manager sees version 2.0.0-1 as "older" than version 1:1.1.13-0.0

[James]

> In his response to your initial bug report #660814, the one that you took as
> motive for insulting him, Reinhard sent you a link to our Wiki that explains
> this very distinction. If you'd have read it, you'd know:
<http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/FAQ#There_is_.27Debian_Multimedia_Maintainers.27_and_.27debian-multimedia.org.27._So_what.27s_the_difference.3F>

My bad - I plead "selective perception" while reading.  I appreciate you
providing the few words of context for the explanation, which, though simple
in retrospect, and obvious to Reinhard, made no sense at all at the time, for
me, starting with a false set of assumptions.

> In my (though limited) legal understanding the quoted passage restricts the
> use of the top-level domain "debian", e.g. debian.de or debian.co.uk.
> Nothing prevents you from randomly inserting the word "debian" into your
> TLD, e.g. debian-administration.org or debianforum.de.

My understanding would be that the courts would consider whether the use of a
registered trademark was likely to "mislead" or to be "misinterpreted" by the
average person.  For instance, "<famous-company>SUX.org" could reasonably be
seen as "editorial speech", while "<famous-company>SUPPORT.org" would be less
clear and, I believe, likely to mislead the average person.  I suppose that
"Debian" could authorize the use, by others, of their registered trademark,
but I also would expect that "casual" authorization would also be seen as an
"abandonment" of that trademark.

There is a brief discussion of "Passing-off", and "Reverse passing off",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

Looking at the http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ home page itself, I notice
that the Debian "swirl" logo is prominently displayed on the navigation bar in
Iceweasel, and the logo is also used on the page itself, along-side a
copyright claim, at the bottom of the page.  But then, looking at
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianLogo, it appears that the Debian "swirl" logo is
not shown as a trademark, with the common law "TM" symbol, and is also not a
registered trademark.  Technically, I suppose that anybody could use it for
anything, especially since Debian is so "casual" about who uses the logo, or
for what purpose.

The Debian Logo page also claims that "The Debian Logo is Open Source Brand".
As best as I can tell, the phrase "Open Source Brand" is not a statutized or
common law term, and is interpreted by some people to mean "anybody can claim
to be associated with this brand".  Having it "both ways" - "It's all us" and
"It's not us" - is kind of awkward.

Well, it strikes me as "sloppy" and "inconsistent", but - hey - whatever.  You
guys do what you like.

> Furthermore, had you used "reportbug" to file the bug report (as
> recommended) it would have probably been sent to the corresponding package
> maintainer, not us.

I don't find "reportbug" to be very "transparent", and there is also this:

	$ reportbug
	**
	Gdk:ERROR:/build/buildd-gtk+2.0_2.24.10-1-i386-kBWRW9/gtk+2.0-2.24.10/gdk/gdkregion-generic.c:1123:miUnionNonO:
	assertion failed: (pReg->numRects<=pReg->size)
	Aborted

> Additionally, the package descriptions should also mention that the package
> are unofficial. Maybe Christian Marillat reads this and eventually considers
> it...

Yes, that would be nice.  But then, that _is_ something about which Debian
_could_ do, by itself, where, for instance, "dpkg -p" could display an
explicit "Package-Originator:" line for a package, distinct from the
"Maintainer:" line.  Of course, that goes back to the same "branding" issue,
requiring a recognised and exclusive trademark or tradename, as discussed.
But, at least that would be distinct from, and more obvious than, some random
"Maintainer Email Address", listed by "dpkg -p" under "Maintainer:", which
just happens to also be addressed to the very same "@debian.org", as you can
see is the case with "marillat at debian.org".

In general, I would suggest that these misunderstandings are all in the nature
of "obvious to those who already know the answer" and "counterintuitive to
those who do not already know the answer".  Presuming a common understanding
is very efficient for "insiders" and not so useful or effective with
"outsiders".  Of course, now, _I've_ been "clued-in" and will be wary.  Maybe
there are still some other people in the world who have not yet been.

"Why can't other people just 'get it'?!"  Well, handles are generally easy,
once you know what they are.  Even crows and raccoons catch on to handles.

Tradenames and trademarks...


James