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:
[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
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
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;
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
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
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
