[IAEP] Fwd: #1690 UNSP: Retain font and size in Write Activity
What do people think? Should we default to non-serif? Should we start new instances of Write with the font that was selected last? Regards, Tomeu -- Forwarded message -- From: Sugar Labs Bugs bugtracker-nore...@sugarlabs.org Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 20:56 Subject: #1690 UNSP: Retain font and size in Write Activity To: Cc: b...@lists.sugarlabs.org #1690: Retain font and size in Write Activity --+- Reporter: krid | Owner: tomeu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Unspecified by Maintainer | Milestone: Unspecified by Release Team Component: sugar | Version: Unspecified Severity: Unspecified | Keywords: Distribution: Unspecified | Status_field: Unconfirmed --+- Dear madam, sir, The Write Activity has a preset font (Dejavu Serif) and font size (12 pts). The font size is much too small for young students and a serif font is rather unusual when learing to read and write. No reading/writing method in the Neterhlands uses serif fonts and we expect the same in other countries. Request: Would it be possible to select font and size _and retain_ them in such a way that at a next startup it is not necessary to set font and size again This feature would be much appreciated. We know font and size can be hard hard coded on every XO, but those settings are lost with every upgrade. Thank you in advance for reading our request, with amicable greetings, and thank you for a great project! Dirk Schouten Public Primary School Rosa Boekdrukker the Netherlands -- Ticket URL: http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1690 Sugar Labs http://sugarlabs.org/ Sugar Labs bug tracking system ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Scenarios for licensing our trademarks
[Again restricting post to iaep because I cannot cross-post] On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:59:09PM +0100, Sean DALY wrote: If we extend our trademarks use freely, we 1) run the risk of losing them 2) will be unable to build awareness of the brand. The same is true of the opposite and I fear this is where we're currently heading for. If derivatives cannot use our name (see [1] for an example I personally consider ridiculous) or need to jump through considerable hoops they will simply choose a different one, excluding our name from part of the market. I'm sure we both have the same goal and I certainly appreciate your hard work on this. But I think a more liberal trademark policy would benefit us much more than a firm one. I hope we can agree on some middle ground between the (highly successful!) Debian one and the Mozilla one (successful as well, but starting to get competition from the Debian equivalents like iceweasel). [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark_case_studies#.24DISTRO CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Scenarios for licensing our trademarks
Hi Sean, I don't see how the opposite is true. Just look at Sony. To be clear, by freely I mean without conditions. The snag is that I don't see how we can be sure we have a legal handle on acceptance of our conditions without an explicit license. Again, this is a change from my original position of two weeks ago. I think the reason I'm quick to assume this is possible is that it's how the GPL works. Either you are complying with its conditions, in which case you have a (copyright) license, or you are out of compliance with its conditions, in which case you don't. I don't see why the same idea of an automatic license that is only granted while its conditions are met would fail to be usable in a trademark license, but maybe there's a reason I haven't thought of. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org One Laptop Per Child ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] Scenarios for licensing our trademarks
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:05 -0500, Chris Ball wrote: 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? We could setup a bot on automatic-tradema...@sugarlabs.org that replies to applications with an ID number; if you don't get one, you definitely don't have a trademark license yet. I'd be happy to work on that. Would RT with an autoresponse a la help at laptop dot org be a suitable system for this? -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] Scenarios for licensing our trademarks
Hi, I'd be happy to work on that. Would RT with an autoresponse a la help at laptop dot org be a suitable system for this? We're still brainstorming rather than being ready to set anything up, but yes, I think that would be a perfect fit for this. Bernie just raised an interesting point in the SLOBS meeting; the workflow could be: * someone mails automatic-tradem...@sugarlabs.org * they receive the latest copy of the trademark policy * they GPG-sign it and mail it back to us * the bot acknowledges receipt, perhaps with a trademark license number. This would satisfy getting a clear response from both sides. - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org One Laptop Per Child ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] Scenarios for licensing our trademarks
Luke, let's finish the policy and process before we work on the nuts bolts... not clear yet Sean On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Luke Faraone l...@faraone.cc wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:05 -0500, Chris Ball wrote: 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? We could setup a bot on automatic-tradema...@sugarlabs.org that replies to applications with an ID number; if you don't get one, you definitely don't have a trademark license yet. I'd be happy to work on that. Would RT with an autoresponse a la help at laptop dot org be a suitable system for this? -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Scenarios for licensing our trademarks
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: A budding brand like ours needs protection to grow, but also needs exposure to grow. Approving trademark licensing applications on the basis of a functioning e-mail address will not assure our brand's protection - we need to do a basic minimum of checking. Prevention will be far more economical in time energy, and fruitful for a cooperative relationship, than the cure of chasing after those who damage our marks (perhaps even inadvertently since they never had a contact to ask questions to). There are a lot of assumptions here, not all of which are obviously true. It would be worthwhile to review the Mozilla trademark policy more closely: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/ It has been viewed as a counter-example, but I think that's mostly reflex from the Iceweasel debacle (which involved a lot of grandstanding and showboating on both sides); IMO their policy has a lot of good features. The Community Edition trademark policy grants you an automatic license to the Mozilla/Firefox marks if you comply with a set of conditions. The details aren't strictly relevant to this discussion (but it might be worth keeping in mind that the Firefox Sugar activity could have been made to comply with the Community Edition restrictions, I just didn't have time to do so). It is an automatic license, in particular: It is very important that Community Releases of Firefox and Thunderbird maintain (or even exceed!) the quality level people have come to associate with Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird. We need to ensure this, but we don't want to get in people's way. So, we are taking an optimistic approach. Official L10n teams can start using the Firefox Community Edition and Thunderbird Community Edition trademarks from day one, but the Mozilla Foundation may require teams to stop doing so in the future if they are redistributing software with low quality and efforts to remedy the situation have not succeeded. Doing things this way allows us to give as much freedom to people as possible, while maintaining our trademarks as a mark of quality (which we are required to do in order to keep them). In particular, when making changes to preferences or adding in extensions or plugins, we recommend that localization teams contact the Mozilla Foundation in advance to discuss any quality concerns that may arise. Rigorous testing of the effects of these extensions and plugins is generally necessary to ensure high quality. http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/l10n-policy.html This seemed a sane and sensible policy to me; I think it would be a very reasonable approach for Sugar as well. --scott ps. Discussions about ease of enforcement should really be made in conjunction with actual plans and budgets for enforcement. In the absence of any dedicated funds for legal remedy, trademark defense is pretty toothless -- you're almost better off in that case maintaining ignorance of violators, since non-prosecution of parties known to be in violation of the trademark can cause the trademark to be removed for non-use. In the absence of a better public citation, I'll point to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_trademark_rights -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
