Re: [IAEP] [sugar-sur] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Acknowledgment of translation request (was Re: [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon)

Enviado desde mi iPod > El sept 15, 2017, a las 21:30, Ryan Cunningham > escribió: > > > > Enviado desde mi iPod > El sept 15, 2017, a las 13:39, Laura Vargas escribió: > >> Walter, Adam, >> >> Am confused here. Why did we not need

[IAEP] [sugar-sur] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Acknowledgment of translation request (was Re: [sugar-sur] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon)

Enviado desde mi iPod > El sept 15, 2017, a las 13:39, Laura Vargas escribió: > > Walter, Adam, > > Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to Tony > in the first place? > > Can you please clarify. > > Procedure Note: In my opinion such

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

Walter, I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to address legal issues to Conservancy. The procedure you (SLOB) follow the first time you want to address Conservancy was to just ask Adam (Sugar Labs rep to SFC) to make a question to Tony. The procedure you (SLOB)

Re: [IAEP] [OLPC-SF] OLPC-SF meeting postponed

Our September meeting will be tomorrow, Sept 16 in room 607 at the SFSU Downtown Center. 835 Market St. San Francisco CA 94103 10am to 1 pm Sameer On Sep 8, 2017 8:49 PM, "Andreas Gros" wrote: > Great! Looking forward to it > Andi > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:20 AM Aaron

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Adam Holt wrote: > I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would > like clarification: > > In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Walter do we have written > documentation (in public or not, but somewhere in our hands)

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Laura Vargas wrote: > Walter, Adam, > > Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to > Tony in the first place? > > Can you please clarify. > Tony asked for the opinion of the oversight board to several

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

Walter, Adam, Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to Tony in the first place? Can you please clarify. Procedure Note: In my opinion such legal related motions should be translated to Sugar Labs main users language: Spanish. This takes time but needs to be done

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

> On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské wrote: > > > +1 for the motion. > > @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay. Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the wiki had been updated already (not by me) so

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

+1 for the motion. @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay. Lionel. 2017-09-15 20:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt : > I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would > like clarification: > > In order to fully

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would like clarification: In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Walter do we have written documentation (in public or not, but somewhere in our hands) that the XO trademark artwork is (as stated in the motion) "currently

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Sugar Labs Finance Committee [Was Re: Motion: To appoint Volunteer Laura Vargas as Sugar Labs Financial Manager [was Re: URGENT action needed]]

We appointed a few different FMs over the years, none of whom panned out. When Adam became our Liaison to the SFC, as I recall, he took over responsibility for financial reports. -walter On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Laura Vargas wrote: > Walter, > > Any chance you

[IAEP] Candidate for 2017-2019 Sugar Labs Oversight Board

Hello everyone, After some reflection I have decided to run to be a SLOB again. If you haven't done so, I invite you to register as a member by September 27th. The election will take place over the first two weeks of October. Thank you Sean. ___ IAEP

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:12:28AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: Motion: To answer the questions posed by the SFC regarding the xo-computer icon as follows: (Q1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does the SLOBs want to keep it there? (A1) The xo-computer icon has

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

Hi Caryl, Free and open source software projects allow for forking by design as a way out of major disagreements. However if this disagreement is due to an intellectual property issue (as it appears to be in the current discussion), it is best handled by our legal counsel. Most of us are not

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

The XO icon in modified form is used on Sugarizer. It appears elsewhere on other current versions of Sugar. It is a well known icon and, as such, carries considerable intrinsic value. If some people want to completely divorce themselves from all the hard work of their predecessors and the

[IAEP] Candidacy for Sugarlabs Oversight Board 2017-2019.

Greetings! I have announced my candidacy for a position on the Sugarlabs Oversight Board (SLOB) for 2017-19 https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2017-2019-candidates#Sameer_Verma You have until 27 September 2017 to register as a member in order to vote in the election. Check to see if

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

So your idea is: no trademarks at all? Do you think Sugar Labs should give up its trademark? Is your goal to undermine Sugar Labs and/or OLPC? Sean On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sebastian Silva wrote: > On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote: > > The copyrights

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote: > The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a > long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal > license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by > a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

>> About the icon-debug, the goal is for the main Sugar branch to be "libre" of Trademarks> global and future users should be >>able to modify and redistribute Sugar as a 100% libre software and that is what we all want, don;t you? This is just silly. It's not because Sugar artwork is trademarked

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 10:24 GMT-05:00 Ignacio Rodríguez : > +1 from me. > I know people tend to relate Sugar to OLPC, in fact I still do sometimes > (it's easier to explain someone that "Sugar" is the thing that runs in the > XO's). > > But the icon should stay as it was. > If you

Re: [IAEP] Membership and Elections Committee - Elections 2017-2019 Update

Thanks a lot! On Sep 15, 2017 4:25 PM, "Laura Vargas" wrote: > > Done. > > > 2017-09-14 7:33 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy : > >> Yes, add him too. Thanks >> >> On Sep 14, 2017 1:29 PM, "Laura Vargas" wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>

Re: [IAEP] Membership and Elections Committee - Elections 2017-2019 Update

Done. 2017-09-14 7:33 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy : > Yes, add him too. Thanks > > On Sep 14, 2017 1:29 PM, "Laura Vargas" wrote: > >> >> >> 2017-09-13 15:00 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy : >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:49 PM,

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

+1 from me. I know people tend to relate Sugar to OLPC, in fact I still do sometimes (it's easier to explain someone that "Sugar" is the thing that runs in the XO's). But the icon should stay as it was. If you want to change the icon for your deployments just change it (wasn't that what you guys

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

+1 Sameer On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy" wrote: > > > On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" wrote: > > The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be > going around in circles. In my opinion, this makes it

[IAEP] Design Team Meeting Call Date to be defined

Hello all. In previous days it has been suggested the new Sugar main icon to be upgraded with Community's feedback. I support the idea and I have propose to prepare a *2017 Sugar Design Marathon.* Am already working on the proposal for dynamics and tasks to be done (as the new "libre" icon

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

-1 Community haven't reach consensus to get the old icon (trademark of OLPC) back. 2017-09-15 9:15 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy : > > > On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" wrote: > > The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" wrote: The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be going around in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that

[IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be going around in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options. To state the