On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:37:57AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Ed McNierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Tomeu - >>> >>> Hi - thanks for bringing this up. Trac #8767 covers OLPC's agreement >>> with Red Hat regarding the identification of OLPC's XO bundled >>> software. The proposed identifications are to provide boot-time >>> "Fedora remix" graphics on the XO. It says nothing one way or the >>> other about non-OLPC Sugar distributions that may or may not contain >>> packages derived from Fedora. This ticket is specific to the XO; >>> other Sugar distributions should decide what their preferences and >>> requirements are for various logo/brand identification. Presumably >>> those requirements might vary from one distribution to another. >>> >>> I hope this helps - please let me know if there are more questions >>> about this specific Trac ticket. Thanks! >> > >From the OLPC side, I think this is all well clear. Though my question >>was rather for other distributors of Sugar, in case they wanted to put >>their brand in Sugar. >> >>I can see how Debian would like for example to place their logo and >>distro version in the control panel, and I personally think that if >>all distros could agree, would be nice to do so in a way that involves >>just placing some icons and perhaps text files somewhere on disk. > > I find it nice that Sugarlabs as upstream care about ways generally for > distributors to add branding (initiated by specific branding need by one > distributor (OLPC and its main contributor (Redhat). > > From a distributor point of view it is of course nice to be able to > advertise/promote itself throughout the system. > > From a user point of view it also makes sense to recognize what > environment she is working in. I believe, however, that if the > environment is the same across distros then it is more cunfusing than > helping to emphasize the distro. > > Users might benefit more from emphasizing the initial package collection > than how it was bootstrapped - e.g. "Peru Sugar", "Sucrose", "Custom > mix" or something. > > The classic unobtrusive place for authors to promote themselves is an > "About" box. I would find it most elegant if Sugar made it easy for > distributors to promote themselves similarly unobtrusive. > > Distributors can still do whatever branding they want (as long as not > violating any licenses, trademarks, local laws etc.), but I dislike > Sugarlabs encouraging too invasive advertising - similarly as I would > dislike a movie player that made it easy to squeeze in advertisements > each 5 minutes. > > Debian has as a declared goal to serve (not to entertain) its users.
Perhaps I explained myself badly, but I was proposing that distros would place their branding inside a control panel section, what now is called "About my XO" and that would be renamed to something like "About my computer". Does it sound sufficiently unobtrusive? I do see some value in users having some knowledge about which linux distribution the software they are using is based on. Perhaps won't matter to 90% of users, but that 10% that does care about it can make a very big difference for good. Regards, Tomeu _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
