We'll be holding a Sugar oversight-board meeting on Monday, 26 April, at 15 UTC (11 EST) in #sugar-meeting on irc.freenode.net. We'll be ratifying the Sugar Labs trademark policy as per some discussions from a few weeks ago in Boston. John Tierney has kindly provided notes of that meeting, which I've included below.
regards. -walter On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John Tierney <[email protected]> wrote: > Typed Copy of John Tierney written Notes of Key Points from > SLOBs Trademark Discussion Monday night April 12th 2010 at > OLPC Offices-Cambridge, MA. > > I believe I have cc'd everyone who was at meeting > plus Bernie, sorry if I missed someone. > (Please understand these were not minutes but personal notes, > so please add comments or clarifications) > > Sean Daly > -Tech PR > -Build Brand > > Logo/Symbol-Meaning > What Does it Stand For > Values > Discrimination/Exclusion-Means this, not that > > -Platform > > Ecosystem Activities > > -Example > > Adobe Labeling Program > Intel Labeling Program > > -Which Allows for > > Revenue Stream From OEM > Control Shaping of Brand > > Chris Ball > -Agreement > > Label O.K. > Revenue O.K. > > Smaller Set > -Distribution of Code > > Unmodified Sugar Code Being Used By Someone-O.K. > Unmodified Sugar Code with Slight Modifications-Translation, etc.-O.K. > Modified Code-Must Ask > > -Example > > Ziff.org-Write Codecs > GPL-Mention License Author Source > > Areas of Agreement on Cases where potential partner must ask for Trademark > use > > 0. Encouraging Phrases** > 1. Websites-Must Ask > > 2. Modified Versions-Must Ask > 3. Reserved Names("Sugar on a Stick")-Must Ask > 4. Logo Program-Must Ask > 5. Mostly Unmodified-Must Ask > > **(This zero point was mentioned by Chris Ball actually last I didn't record > what he might of actually titled this, this was the words I was using) > > A few themes I took away from the meeting are as follows: > > Encourage vs. Discourage > > Unmodified vs. Modified > > Logo Program-With Gradations of involvement(Possibly 3 to 4 Different Logos > for Partners depending on > > level of involvement. Possible to have one Logo to show partners > with Modified Sugar Code) > > My thought would be if we can focus on the Encourage and Logo Program > Themes, I think it will help us come > up with final wording that displays Sugar Labs as a Proactive/ > Inclusive/Collaborative Partner. > > A suggestion to achieve this would be to: > > Quickly come up with the names for the labeling program along > with what level of involvement and/or unmodified/modified Sugar Code that > involves. > We in turn need to work on Logo's but are not necessary to written copy > **Sean can you post a draft outline of Labeling Program to begin > discussion** > > > With a Labeling/Logo Description in place by default those definitions will > answer many of the use cases. We can then take > the January 15 2010 Draft and build that language around Labeling Program > with an aim to use encouraging/inclusive > and clearer language. > > These two portions in particular seem somewhat contradictory in > language after reading them and > comparing them to notes and meeting discussion. Hopefully Labeling Program > can absorb these two > parts and allow for a clear differentiation in use cases and proper > interaction with Sugar Labs to > benefit the parties involved. > > 2a. > To refer to the Sugar Labs software in substantially unmodified form > "substantially unmodified" means built from > the source code provided by the Sugar Labs project, possibly with minor > modifications including but not limited to: > the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into > other languages, changes required for > compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, or the > inclusion of bug-fix patches). All such minor > modifications must be released under an approved license. > > **It seems to say you can use with some minor modifications but then says > all minor modifications must be > released with approved license*** > > 3. > You may use the Sugar Labs Marks as part of the name of a product designed > to work with Sugar Labs, so long > as the name as a whole (via its other components) clearly and unambiguously > distinguishes the product from Sugar > Labs software itself, and the general presentation of the product does not > imply any official association or identity > with Sugar Labs. Because it would be awkward to attach a trademark symbol to > a portion of a larger name whose > other portions might themselves be trademarked, the requirement to display > the symbol is waived for this circumstance. > > ***It would seem if the Sugar Labs Marks were part of the name of a product > that would indicate that there is a > perceived official relationship or identity to Sugar Labs which then > contradicts with the next statement*** > > Example: If I trademark "JT Linux" and then sell a product "JT Linux with > Sugar on Board" from the reading above > I'm confused if I could do that or not. From the meeting my understanding is > that I could. > > Since many of the individuals who end up redistributing Sugar may very > well be of the non-technical nature(in a writing/ > coding/distributing Software sense) we must try to use language that > encourages them and shy away from technical/legal > language that may discourage/intimidate a potential deployer of the Sugar > Learning Platform. > > Again please fill in areas of importance that I have missed. > > Appreciate the Chance to Participate! > > John Tierney > > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
