Hi... I guess I've become the minority. I still believe that the name "Sugar On A Stick" should be allowed for all distributions of Sugar on a usb stick or even a live CD. Sugar Labs can control and identify their special builds in a special way... "SoaS by SugarLabs" or whatever, but the term has already become so generic that trying to make it exclusive at this point seems to be a waste of time and energy.
Caryl (one who remembers and longs for the days when free, open source software really was free and open source...in the early 1980s). Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:52:46 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SoaS] updating the draft decision panel report On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Tabitha Roder <[email protected]> wrote: If we are leaning towards: Yes. Sugar on a Stick is the central pillar of our marketing strategy. It's not trademarked, but should be. SL does not want to confuse its users and a light touch like this is all that's needed. Can I suggest we start talking about what method we recommend others use to define other Sugar on a USB naming conventions? This will help those who create other distributions to know what to do if we publicise that "Sugar on a Stick" is only to be used for the Sugarlabs SoaS-Fedora distributions. Three people so far have weighed in to say that SoaS only means 'SoaS-Fedora' today, but could mean something else in the future. It sounds to me like we are leaning towards consensus on a reworded statement: "Sugar on a Stick" or "SoaS" is only to be used for a specific Sugarlabs project and its products. [Currently, for example, the SoaS project is only producing SoaS-Fedora.] Independent projects should use names that are not confusingly similar. " Is that accurate? When people ask for help, they need to know what they have. Tabitha Yes, this aspect does not sound like a marketing question. SJ
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
