"What is legally required, as regards other people’s trademarks, is to *avoid using them* in ways which a reader might reasonably understand *as* naming or *labeling* *our own* programs or *activities*." [1]
- citing from the GNU Coding standards, section 2.3 "Trademarks" https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Trademarks.html Emphasis added by me. Regards, Sebastian On 16/09/17 21:18, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > But I intentionally gave the very simple examples... > > While RHEL/CentOS (and many other open source/commercial hybrid > projects) rebrand their free versions because a complete replacement > causes obvious confusion, these projects themselves include many > products with trademarked names. > > Should Sugar refuse to include a Python(tm) editor? Or change > programming languages because we proudly say Sugar is written in > Python(tm)? https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ > > Do we then go to JavaScript(tm) which is a trademark of Oracle(R)? > > Or be confused with any number of products (shoes, hand lotion, etc.) > which also have trademarks for the "Python" name? > > Trademarks come into play primarily when there is confusion. And OLPC > allegedly muddied the waters early on by allowing their name and logos > to be used by OLPC France, OLPC SF, etc. > > It's not clear at this point if there is confusion between Sugar Labs > and OLPC over the logo, except as part of a historical reference which > both companies have. > > If there was clear proof that OLPC was using the XO logo to promote > Endless then there might be something. If OLPC explicitly asked Sugar > to change the icon, then that would be something to be considered. > > OLPC's website, while updated, still promotes Sugar on XO-1.75's and > the "XO Laptop Touch" (by specs, likely a XO-4). > > Given we still know people at OLPC, and OLPC people who went to > Endless, I would have expected to hear something by now if they > formally wanted to break ties with Sugar. > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Sebastian Silva > <sebast...@fuentelibre.org <mailto:sebast...@fuentelibre.org>> wrote: > > > > On 16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > >> >> By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be >> distributed because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and >> Ubuntu cannot be distributed because it contains the name and >> logos owned by Canonical? > > Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples will serve to > clarify the issue: > > The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from Red Hat > Linux in order to be able to distribute it legally. > > Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article. > > /`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a > final product very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's //*branding and > logos are changed*//because Red Hat does not allow them to be > redistributed.`/ > > And I also know that, while you can distribute Ubuntu, you cannot > make a derivative distribution of it and call it > anything-like-buntu, or you will have problems with Canonical Inc. > > Quoting directly from > > https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy > > <https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy>: > > /`Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be > approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going > to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you > must//*remove and replace the Trademarks*//and will need to > recompile the source code to create your own binaries.`/ > > As you can see, being this topic such a mess in general, Sugar > Labs would serve its community well by staying clear of any > Trademarks, as a general policy. > > Regards, > Sebastian > >
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep