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

[Mel Chua]

On 01/21/2010 04:30 AM, Sean DALY wrote:
> Per the last SLOBs meeting, and this mail
> (http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2010-January/002621.html)
> cc'd to the SLOBs, I had reflected for some time on this and come to
> the conclusion that it can't be done the way we want to do it without
> approval - abuse will be too simple.
>
> Aside from Walter, none of the SLOBs cc'd on that mail responded, I
> ask the other SLOBs to please try to understand my position so we can
> wrap this up. i will have new text to propose as well.

Thanks for writing that email, Sean - I did read it, and learned a lot 
from it (thanks in particular for putting in links to 
examples/references!) but was quiet because didn't have anything to add 
to the conversation at the time, beyond "wow, thanks for writing this!"

Trying to pull discussion questions from the email here, let me know if 
I'm misreading something - all these questions center around the aim to 
promote and grow the SL brand, which means both protecting the brand and 
making it so that others can and will spread it.

* What conditions must the licensee respect in order to be allowed to 
use a SL mark? (Broad question covered by other points in our trademark 
discussion for tomorrow, I believe - this is basically the entire question.)

* There is an assumption (or proposal) in the email that trademark usage 
of all SL marks will be free. Is this something we agree on, and should 
explicitly state?

* When would licensing not be routine, i.e. require consideration before
licensing?

* What formulation(s) of the SL marks should we provide as options? This 
is the label text - our "circled intel inside sticker", if you will.

* What could motivate us to revoke a license?

* What graphical specifications on mark usage do we want to set forth? 
(must have this much whitespace, must use these colors, must not be 
distorted, etc)

(Am I missing anything?)

--Mel