That works fine with honest folk, but what about the company that wishes to use the marks aggressively, as a selling point, without providing any support? Or the person who promises to respect GPL and CC licenses, then turns around and adds Flash binaries to a Sugar image? Or the guy who claims he sent in an e-mail and never did, uses the marks and tells the press we never answer our e-mail? It's because not everyone is well-intentioned (unfortunately) that we need to explicitly grant a revocable license through direct contact, for a defined period wiith a renewal mechanism.
Sean On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Chris Ball <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > The case of a modified Sugar developed with no community contact > > at all remains possible, as long as our marks are not used. If > > our marks are used (the preferable case), it is preferable to > > have at least basic information about who is doing it and where. > > This mail talks about how it is beneficial to know about everyone who > is using our marks, implying that you have to make everyone ask for > permission in order to know this. > > An equally valid way of finding this out, I think, would be to say > "You may use the marks without permission if you send us an e-mail > saying that you intend to use the marks and giving a link/description > to your product". > > Thanks, > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball <[email protected]> > One Laptop Per Child > _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
