Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-17 Thread Laura Vargas 
Hello Samuel,

Back on 2015, on the historic "Planning for the Future" thread you shared
on IAEP
(Sugar Labs supported mailing list) your concern "that Sugar needed to
ensure it had long-term sponsorship and a long-term user base."


*I agree with you and it was one of the reasons to make Sugar UI
machine-vendor neutral.*
You also mention long term planning for Sugar Labs & OLPC and how they both
need to come up with long-term strategies. From your disclaimer it is not
clear if you were at the time an employee of OLPC.



*We Sugar Labs, as far as I as Board Member since 2017 know, don't have any
contractual relationship with this computer vendor.Sugar Labs needs its
members to urgently disassociate Sugar and Sugar Labs from this computer
vendor.*

It's hurting our neutrality and our capacity to evolve Sugar.

Regards,

Laura V



2017-09-17 8:13 GMT-05:00 Sebastian Silva :

> "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 OLPC over the logo, except as part of a historical reference which both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> 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/t
>> erms-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
>



-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ L. Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-17 Thread Sebastian Silva 
"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
> > 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
> 
> :
>
> /`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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-16 Thread Samuel Greenfeld 
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 
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:
>
> *`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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-16 Thread Sebastian Silva 


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:

/`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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-16 Thread Samuel Greenfeld 
I agree with Sameer; if we want to debate this, this really needs a
lawyer's opinion.  Either that or just asking OLPC Inc. what they consider
acceptable.

Sugar has been using the XO logo for approximately 11 years now.  My
non-lawyer opinion is that if someone was to complain, they would be barred
by estoppel for having known about it, but failing to make a claim in a
timely manner.

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?


On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Silva 
wrote:

>
> On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote:
>
> (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.
>
>
> There is a (hopefully not intentional?) flaw in this answer. The board was
> in a rush to pass the motion, but it should be more careful when
> communicating with our legal counsel.
>
> SLOBs, please clarify:
>
> "(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of our
> artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)"
>
> Sugar Labs does not distribute Sugar to end users. Instead it distributes
> Sugar to distributors (Debian, Fedora) who have their own downstream
> projects (OLPC, Trisquel, Ubuntu). In turn these distributions are often
> bundled with hardware vendors products or local service provider's
> services: *These last groups are the most threatened by a potential
> Trademark dispute.*
>
> Does restricting the answer to "users" mean Sugar Labs Oversight Board
> does not care about these actor's freedoms?
>
> Please also clarify:
>
> "As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of
> Sugar, we have no opinion. "
>
> This is contradictory with the previous statement. The terms of the GPL
> provide for licensees to be able to use the source for *any purpose.* A
> Trademarked logo cannot be used for any purpose. This is basically the
> legal reason to keep any Trademark out of the Sugar User Interface.
>
> Regards and happy Software Freedom Day to all,
>
> Sebastian
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-16 Thread Sebastian Silva 

On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote:
> (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.

There is a (hopefully not intentional?) flaw in this answer. The board
was in a rush to pass the motion, but it should be more careful when
communicating with our legal counsel.

SLOBs, please clarify:

"(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of
our artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)"

Sugar Labs does not distribute Sugar to end users. Instead it
distributes Sugar to distributors (Debian, Fedora) who have their own
downstream projects (OLPC, Trisquel, Ubuntu). In turn these
distributions are often bundled with hardware vendors products or local
service provider's services: *These last groups are the most threatened
by a potential Trademark dispute.**
*
Does restricting the answer to "users" mean Sugar Labs Oversight Board
does not care about these actor's freedoms?

Please also clarify:

"As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of
Sugar, we have no opinion. "

This is contradictory with the previous statement. The terms of the GPL
provide for licensees to be able to use the source for /any purpose./ A
Trademarked logo cannot be used for any purpose. This is basically the
legal reason to keep any Trademark out of the Sugar User Interface. /
/
Regards and happy Software Freedom Day to all,

Sebastian
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Walter Bender 
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Adam Holt  wrote:

> I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would
> like clarification:
>
> In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Walter do we have written
> documentation (in public or not, but somewhere in our hands) that the XO
> trademark artwork is (as stated in the motion) "currently licensed under
> the GPL" ?
>
> Do you know who specifically is/was the source of this GPL declaration?
>

As far as I recall, the Sugar team was the source of the declaration. I was
President of Software for OLPC at the time and a member of the team. The
GPL COPYING file is included with Sugar Artwork:

https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/blob/master/COPYING

The last change to this file, according to git, was 10 years ago.


> Separately (if possible!) has this been reviewed as valid by legal counsel?
>

I thought that was why we were asking for Tony's involvement.

>
>
> *Thanks for clarifying what you can!*
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Samson Goddy 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>> To: SLOBs 
>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>
>>
>> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Adam Holt 
I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would
like clarification:

In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Walter do we have written
documentation (in public or not, but somewhere in our hands) that the XO
trademark artwork is (as stated in the motion) "currently licensed under
the GPL" ?

Do you know who specifically is/was the source of this GPL declaration?

Separately (if possible!) has this been reviewed as valid by legal counsel?

*Thanks for clarifying what you can!*

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Samson Goddy 
wrote:

>
> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
> To: SLOBs 
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>
>
> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Martin Dengler 

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:12:28AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:

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.

[...]

regards.

-walter


I believe the motion has passed.  
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2017-09-15

Martin


Motion 2017-09-15 "Motion regarding xo-computer icon"
=

URL: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2017-09-15
Motion: 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054648.html
Second: 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054710.html

Votes and SLOB members (in order listed on
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board )

+1 Walter Bender [1]
+1 Lionel Laské  [2]
+1 Sameer Verma  [3]
  Adam Holt [4]
+1 Samson Goddy  [5]
+1 Ignacio Rodríguez [6]
-1 Laura Vargas  [7]
== =
+4 Total to-date
+3 Minimum
+5 Maximum

1. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054648.html
2. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054667.html
3. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054713.html
4. Nothing found as of 2017-09-15 19:11 GMT on 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/thread.html
5. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054710.html
6. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054716.html
7. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054711.html


pgpHERAueyLBN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Caryl Bigenho 
The XO icon in modified form is used on Sugarizer. It appears elsewhere on 
other current versions of Sugar. It is a well known icon and, as such, carries 
considerable intrinsic value.


If some people want to completely divorce themselves from all the hard work of 
their predecessors and the good will they have built up, perhaps it would be 
better for them to leave Sugar Labs entirely and strike out on their own.


Caryl



From: IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Sean DALY 
<sdaly...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 9:17 AM
To: Sebastian Silva
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel; Samson Goddy; OLPC para usuarios, docentes, voluntarios y 
administradores; Laura Vargas; Sugar Labs Marketing; Sugar Labs Oversights 
Board; iaep; Ignacio Rodríguez
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

So your idea is: no trademarks at all? Do you think Sugar Labs should give up 
its trademark?

Is your goal to undermine Sugar Labs and/or OLPC?

Sean


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sebastian Silva 
<sebast...@fuentelibre.org<mailto:sebast...@fuentelibre.org>> wrote:
On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
> The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
> long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
> license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
> a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
> underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
> change.
You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
competitors?

Sebastian

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Sean DALY 
So your idea is: no trademarks at all? Do you think Sugar Labs should give
up its trademark?

Is your goal to undermine Sugar Labs and/or OLPC?

Sean


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sebastian Silva  wrote:

> On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
> > The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
> > long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
> > license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
> > a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
> > underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
> > change.
> You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
> downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
> competitors?
>
> Sebastian
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Sebastian Silva 
On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
> The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
> long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
> license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
> a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
> underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
> change.
You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
competitors?

Sebastian
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Sean DALY 
>> 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?

This is just silly. It's not because Sugar artwork is trademarked or
copyrighted that it can't be distributed. The copyrights are licensed under
the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a long history of use in Sugar with
OLPC's cooperation - a formal license may be superfluous (a determination
which can only be made by a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So
this is just an underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and
impose a change. Just awful.

Sean.


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Laura Vargas 
wrote:

>
>
> 2017-09-15 10:24 GMT-05:00 Ignacio Rodríguez :
>
>> +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  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Sameer
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:
>>>


 On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" 
 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 
 Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
 Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
 To: SLOBs 
 Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 


 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,

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Laura Vargas 
2017-09-15 10:24 GMT-05:00 Ignacio Rodríguez :

> +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  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Sameer
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" 
>>> 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 
>>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>>> To: SLOBs 
>>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>>
>>>
>>> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Ignacio Rodríguez 
+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?)

Thx


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM Sameer Verma  wrote:

> +1
>
> Sameer
>
> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>> To: SLOBs 
>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>
>>
>> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Sameer Verma 
+1

Sameer

On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
> To: SLOBs 
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>
>
> 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.

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Laura Vargas 
-1

Community haven't reach consensus to get the old icon (trademark of OLPC)
back.


2017-09-15 9:15 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :

>
>
> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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.
>
>
That answer does not justify the use.


> (Q2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what
> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
>
>
I propose it needs to say:

" In case SLOBs want to get it back..."

- 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 
> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
> To: SLOBs 
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>
>
> 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Samson Goddy 
On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
To: SLOBs 
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 


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

--

[IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

2017-09-15 Thread Walter Bender 
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.

regards.

-walter

-- Forwarded message --
From: Walter Bender 
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
To: SLOBs 
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 


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




-- 
Walter Bender