[IAEP] [SLOBS] meeting reminder
walter.bender at gmail.com
Sun Apr 25 16:13:06 EDT 2010
We'll be holding a Sugar oversight-board meeting on Monday, 26 April,
at 15 UTC (11 EST) in #sugar-meeting on irc.freenode.net. We'll be
ratifying the Sugar Labs trademark policy as per some discussions from
a few weeks ago in Boston. John Tierney has kindly provided notes of
that meeting, which I've included below.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John Tierney <jtis4stx at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Typed Copy of John Tierney written Notes of Key Points from
> SLOBs Trademark Discussion Monday night April 12th 2010 at
> OLPC Offices-Cambridge, MA.
> I believe I have cc'd everyone who was at meeting
> plus Bernie, sorry if I missed someone.
> (Please understand these were not minutes but personal notes,
> so please add comments or clarifications)
> Sean Daly
> -Tech PR
> -Build Brand
> What Does it Stand For
> Discrimination/Exclusion-Means this, not that
> Ecosystem Activities
> Adobe Labeling Program
> Intel Labeling Program
> -Which Allows for
> Revenue Stream From OEM
> Control Shaping of Brand
> Chris Ball
> Label O.K.
> Revenue O.K.
> Smaller Set
> -Distribution of Code
> Unmodified Sugar Code Being Used By Someone-O.K.
> Unmodified Sugar Code with Slight Modifications-Translation, etc.-O.K.
> Modified Code-Must Ask
> Ziff.org-Write Codecs
> GPL-Mention License Author Source
> Areas of Agreement on Cases where potential partner must ask for Trademark
> 0. Encouraging Phrases**
> 1. Websites-Must Ask
> 2. Modified Versions-Must Ask
> 3. Reserved Names("Sugar on a Stick")-Must Ask
> 4. Logo Program-Must Ask
> 5. Mostly Unmodified-Must Ask
> **(This zero point was mentioned by Chris Ball actually last I didn't record
> what he might of actually titled this, this was the words I was using)
> A few themes I took away from the meeting are as follows:
> Encourage vs. Discourage
> Unmodified vs. Modified
> Logo Program-With Gradations of involvement(Possibly 3 to 4 Different Logos
> for Partners depending on
> level of involvement. Possible to have one Logo to show partners
> with Modified Sugar Code)
> My thought would be if we can focus on the Encourage and Logo Program
> Themes, I think it will help us come
> up with final wording that displays Sugar Labs as a Proactive/
> Inclusive/Collaborative Partner.
> A suggestion to achieve this would be to:
> Quickly come up with the names for the labeling program along
> with what level of involvement and/or unmodified/modified Sugar Code that
> We in turn need to work on Logo's but are not necessary to written copy
> **Sean can you post a draft outline of Labeling Program to begin
> With a Labeling/Logo Description in place by default those definitions will
> answer many of the use cases. We can then take
> the January 15 2010 Draft and build that language around Labeling Program
> with an aim to use encouraging/inclusive
> and clearer language.
> These two portions in particular seem somewhat contradictory in
> language after reading them and
> comparing them to notes and meeting discussion. Hopefully Labeling Program
> can absorb these two
> parts and allow for a clear differentiation in use cases and proper
> interaction with Sugar Labs to
> benefit the parties involved.
> To refer to the Sugar Labs software in substantially unmodified form
> "substantially unmodified" means built from
> the source code provided by the Sugar Labs project, possibly with minor
> modifications including but not limited to:
> the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into
> other languages, changes required for
> compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, or the
> inclusion of bug-fix patches). All such minor
> modifications must be released under an approved license.
> **It seems to say you can use with some minor modifications but then says
> all minor modifications must be
> released with approved license***
> You may use the Sugar Labs Marks as part of the name of a product designed
> to work with Sugar Labs, so long
> as the name as a whole (via its other components) clearly and unambiguously
> distinguishes the product from Sugar
> Labs software itself, and the general presentation of the product does not
> imply any official association or identity
> with Sugar Labs. Because it would be awkward to attach a trademark symbol to
> a portion of a larger name whose
> other portions might themselves be trademarked, the requirement to display
> the symbol is waived for this circumstance.
> ***It would seem if the Sugar Labs Marks were part of the name of a product
> that would indicate that there is a
> perceived official relationship or identity to Sugar Labs which then
> contradicts with the next statement***
> Example: If I trademark "JT Linux" and then sell a product "JT Linux with
> Sugar on Board" from the reading above
> I'm confused if I could do that or not. From the meeting my understanding is
> that I could.
> Since many of the individuals who end up redistributing Sugar may very
> well be of the non-technical nature(in a writing/
> coding/distributing Software sense) we must try to use language that
> encourages them and shy away from technical/legal
> language that may discourage/intimidate a potential deployer of the Sugar
> Learning Platform.
> Again please fill in areas of importance that I have missed.
> Appreciate the Chance to Participate!
> John Tierney
More information about the IAEP