Motion: Local labs can issue Sugar certificates (and charge for this service whatever they want) but only if: (1) they maintain a page on our wiki explaining what content they use for training, where to download it, and what pricing they use; and (2) all the content they use for training is licensed under one of the licenses recommend by http://opensource.org/docs/osd and/or http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses. We will consult with the SFC for advice when a particular license is under question.
A (very) belated +1 from me on this - I like the trust and transparency this proposal fosters.
I note that the motion only applies to Local Labs, which I think is fair and prudent - SLOBs has no business micromanaging what individual people and groups do, but a Lab implies a higher sense of cohesion than "random person decides to offer course." I say "prudent" because in the case of gross misuse of the Sugar marks/materials that can't be resolved via consensus and discussion, the Lab's charter can be revoked. I don't think we'll ever actually run into such a scenario, but it's nice to have at least a semi-legal leg to stand on just in case. Charter revocation would also be terribly difficult and take a long time and is rather extreme, so any governing body would be highly disincented to nitpick on unimportant wordings in material and will largely leave the labs alone to do cool stuff with teaching, which is a Good Thing.
--Mel _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
