[IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] Ooo4Kids logo request
walter.bender at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 08:01:37 EDT 2010
I vote +1 to this use of the TM... but in the spirit of bike-shedding,
I agree with with Bernie that the color-on-white schemes would be
better on this page :)
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
> El Fri, 25-06-2010 a las 12:21 -0400, Mel Chua escribió:
>> Continuing our "move discussion to list" adventures...
>> Bernie brought up an OOo4Kids request to display our logo. Tomeu and I
>> were unable to find the original text of the request - what is the
>> project asking for? We're blocking until we get that text - does anyone
>> know where to find it?
>> A related motion, from Bernie:
>> MOTION: To pre-approve the entire class of requests such as "can I put
>> Sugar Labs logo in my partners/acknowledgments page?", as they are very
>> frequent and hard to abuse for bad purposes.
>> For the record: if we passed this, we'd need to agree on a specific
>> change to our TM policy (http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark).
>> Discussion with Tomeu in #sugar-meeting just now led to the following
>> conclusions (I'll speak for myself here, but I think Tomeu agrees):
>> 1. We should automatically let other parties display *their* endorsement
>> of Sugar - for instance, "I <3 and support Sugar Labs"
>> banners/buttons/badges, because that is about the other party saying
>> something about SL.
>> 2. The other way around - something that implies that SL endorses
>> something else, is exactly why we have the TM usage guidelines and
>> request procedure, and Ooo4Kids should follow it - if their request
>> falls in one of the already-automated categories, then sure, it's
>> automated... if it isn't, then it will need to be voted on.
>> It's not clear whether Ooo4Kids is asking for #1 or #2, so we're
>> ultimately still blocking on finding the text of that request. Please
>> help! (If you know who the original requestor of this motion is, please
>> let them know to get in touch with us.)
> This is the original "request":
> <ericb2> hello
> <ericb2> just FYI
> <ericb2> http://www.educoo.org/pages/partenaires/
> <ericb2> Adam sent me some machines, and you are counted as partner
> <ericb2> you means "Sugar Labs"
> <ericb2> if ever you disagree, just tell us, and we'll remove the logo,
> and everything you'll ask to
> <ericb2> thanks for forwarding the info to Adam and other
> <bernie> I do agree
> <bernie> except our logo with a black bg looks horrible :-)
> <bernie> I'll ask the board to confirm they agree with this partnership,
> but I'm sure they will say ok
> <ericb2> ah, sorry. In fact, this is the first try, and we'll probably
> improve. e.g. the UTBM logo is a fake, and I sent one correct to Fred
> (ht eguy who will maintain the page)
> <ericb2> ok, thanks a lot
> <bernie> I sent an email asking if this usage of our logo is ok without
> requesting a TM license
> For the small things like this, I think anything much more sophisticated
> than "can I put the SL logo in our partners page?" + "sure, go ahead!"
> seems overkill to me.
> Besides the waste of time, I'm afraid that acting like a bunch of
> paranoid attorneys when interacting with our partners and contributors
> would hurt Sugar Labs' public image way more than the tiny chance of our
> logo receiving an undeserved acknowledgment somewhere.
> // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
> \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the IAEP