[IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] prep for Friday's meeting

[Mel Chua]

>     >  2. Are we missing any discussion points for trademark on
>     >  http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Discussion_points?
>
> The new draft section 2 says "You may use the Sugar Labs Marks *with*
> prior written permission for the following purposes (subject to the
> other sections)", but in the old draft section 2 involved *not*
> needing prior written permission for those purposes, and the text
> appears to still be written that way:
>
>     2.b: To identify Sugar Labs software as a distinct component of a
>     software offering. For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or
>     other "<product>,<joined with>  Sugar" language would be a use that
>     does not require explicit written permission.
>
> Stating "you need written permission, for example, here's a case where
> you don't need written permission" doesn't make sense -- my preferred
> fix would be reverting to *not* needing written permission for the
> unmodified/bundling situations described in §2.  What do others think?

I think I have the same preferences - my preferred fix would be 
something like this: (I apologize for the awkwardness of this pseudocode 
- I'm trying to go for "covers all possible cases" logical clarity 
first, and actual readability by human second in this first pass...)

if sw_modified == True or sw_bundled_with_non_SL_stuff == True:
     ask_SLOBs("derived from, based on, or derivative of")
else:
     if SL_software_bundled_as_distinct_component == True:
         if name in acceptable_list:
             return "Yes, you have clearance to use the marks."
         else:
             ask_SLOBs("<product>, <joined with> <SL mark>")
     else:
         if modifications.license in approved_licenses:
             ask_SLOBs("<details of modification>")
         else:
             return "No, you may not use the marks."

Chris, not sure how well this matches up with your understanding, but my 
reading of what you wrote makes it appear to me as if they're the same.

Thoughts from others?

(I'll move this discussion thread to the wiki when it resolves, or when 
the SLOBs meeting is about to begin on Friday, whichever comes first.)

--Mel