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

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."

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

"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"    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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: n

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 wrote: > On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote: > > The copyrights

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

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

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

>> 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

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

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

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

+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

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

+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

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

-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

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

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

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

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