2017-09-15 10:24 GMT-05:00 Ignacio Rodríguez <igna...@sugarlabs.org>:
> +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 were trying to say?) > Ignacio, First am glad you have decide to stay in the oversight board. Your resignation was not clear. I hope this means you are going dedicate time to the oversight tasks. :D 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? > Thx > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM Sameer Verma <sve...@sfsu.edu> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Sameer >> >> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy" <samsongo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" <walter.ben...@gmail.com> >>> 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 >>> Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options. >>> >>> To state the obvious, this discussion is not about whether or not we can >>> change the xo-computer icon -- we can do that at any time in consultation >>> with our design team. The discussion is about whether or not we make that >>> decision on our own terms or be forced into a change. >>> >>> 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 been part of Sugar since we first >>> designed and built Sugar (beginning in 2006) and we would like to keep it >>> there until such time as the design team decides there is a reason to >>> change it. >>> (Q2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what >>> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen? E.g., >>> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify >>> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the >>> program? >>> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and >>> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to >>> Sugar? >>> (A2) Sugar Artwork, including the xo-computer icon, is currently >>> licensed under the GPL and we would like our downstream users to be able to >>> use all of our artwork under the terms of that license. As far as the use >>> of any trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion. >>> >>> I'd appreciate if someone would second this motion and, if it passes, >>> the results be reported to Tony by Adam, our SFC liaison. Of course, if the >>> motion does not pass, we will need to continue the discussion. >>> >>> I second the motion. >>> >>> >>> regards. >>> >>> -walter >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM >>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon >>> To: SLOBs <sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org> >>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel <sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org> >>> >>> >>> As probably most of you are aware, yesterday one of our community >>> members unilaterally changed the xo-computer icon in sugar-artwork. The >>> ensuing discussion about the change is in the github pull request, "Urgent >>> fix logos", [1] >>> >>> The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork >>> [2] and there was concern that we were infringing and consequently >>> downstream users would also be infringing. >>> >>> As Sean Daly points out, this is not the first time that the topic has >>> come up [3, 4]. "In the past, OLPC was amenable to the use of the xo >>> logo in Sugar, but asked we not use it in marketing materials without a >>> formal co-branding licensing agreement." >>> >>> Personally, I think that OLPC was explicit in making the Sugar artwork >>> available under a GPL licence and that this is hence moot. But I am not >>> qualified to make that assessment. Consequently, I asked Adam Holt, our SFC >>> liaison, to raise the issue with the legal team. Tony asked us to consider >>> the following questions: >>> >>> 1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does >>> the SLOBs want to keep it there? >>> 2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what >>> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen? E.g., >>> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify >>> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the >>> program? >>> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and >>> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to >>> Sugar? >>> >>> The answer to the first part of Tony's first question is that the XO >>> logo was part of Sugar from the very beginning -- before Sugar Labs was >>> split from OLPC. We've never changed it. >>> >>> Regarding the second part: does the SLOBs want to keep it there? is >>> something we need to discuss. Personally, I think it serves its purpose >>> well -- a childcentric interface and it is "iconic" of Sugar. I see no >>> reason to change it. >>> >>> Regarding Tony's second question, I would want downstream users to have >>> as much freedom as possible: to use or not use the XO icon as they choose. >>> However, I don't see the need to expand beyond the context of Sugar. If >>> someone downstream wants to use the artwork for some other purpose, that is >>> not our issue (although I that the GPL license would be the relevant >>> determinant.) >>> >>> What do others think? >>> >>> Note, I think we should defer the discussion of what we would use as >>> replacement artwork until we resolve the current issue. >>> >>> regards. >>> >>> -walter >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/pull/96 >>> [2] http://www.trademarkia.com/xo-78880051.html >>> [3] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-December/003059.html >>> [4] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2011-October/014245.html >>> >>> -- >>> Walter Bender >>> Sugar Labs >>> http://www.sugarlabs.org >>> <http://www.sugarlabs.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Walter Bender >>> Sugar Labs >>> http://www.sugarlabs.org >>> <http://www.sugarlabs.org> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Laura V. * I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org* “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” ~ L. Victoria Happy Learning! #LearningByDoing #Projects4good #IDesignATSugarLabs #WeCanDoBetter
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep