[IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Sameer Verma]

+1

Sameer

On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy" <samsongoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be
> going around  in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative
> that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that
> Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options.
>
> To state the obvious, this discussion is not about whether or not we can
> change the xo-computer icon -- we can do that at any time in consultation
> with our design team. The discussion is about whether or not we make that
> decision on our own terms or be forced into a change.
>
> Motion: To answer the questions posed by the SFC regarding the xo-computer
> icon as follows:
> (Q1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does
> the SLOBs want to keep it there?
> (A1) The xo-computer icon has been part of Sugar since we first designed
> and built Sugar (beginning in 2006) and we would like to keep it there
> until such time as the design team decides there is a reason to change it.
> (Q2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what
> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify
> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the
> program?
> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
> Sugar?
> (A2) Sugar Artwork, including the xo-computer icon, is currently licensed
> under the GPL and we would like our downstream users to be able to use all
> of our artwork under the terms of that license. As far as the use of any
> trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion.
>
> I'd appreciate if someone would second this motion and, if it passes, the
> results be reported to Tony by Adam, our SFC liaison. Of course, if the
> motion does not pass, we will need to continue the discussion.
>
> I second the motion.
>
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
> To: SLOBs <slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org>
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>
>
>
> As probably most of you are aware, yesterday one of our community members
> unilaterally changed the xo-computer icon in sugar-artwork. The ensuing
> discussion about the change is in the github pull request, "Urgent fix
> logos", [1]
>
> The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork [2]
> and there was concern that we were infringing and consequently downstream
> users would also be infringing.
>
> As Sean Daly points out, this is not the first time that the topic has
> come up [3, 4]. "In the past, OLPC was amenable to the use of the xo logo
> in Sugar, but asked we not use it in marketing materials without a formal
> co-branding licensing agreement."
>
> Personally, I think that OLPC was explicit in making the Sugar artwork
> available under a GPL licence and that this is hence moot. But I am not
> qualified to make that assessment. Consequently, I asked Adam Holt, our SFC
> liaison, to raise the issue with the legal team. Tony asked us to consider
> the following questions:
>
> 1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does
> the SLOBs want to keep it there?
> 2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork:  what
> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify
> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the
> program?
> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
> Sugar?
>
> The answer to the first part of Tony's first question is that the XO logo
> was part of Sugar from the very beginning -- before Sugar Labs was split
> from OLPC. We've never changed it.
>
> Regarding the second part: does the SLOBs want to keep it there?  is
> something we  need to discuss. Personally, I think it serves its purpose
> well -- a childcentric interface and it is "iconic" of Sugar. I see no
> reason to change it.
>
> Regarding Tony's second question, I would want downstream users to have as
> much freedom as possible: to use or not use the XO icon as they choose.
> However, I don't see the need to expand beyond the context of Sugar. If
> someone downstream wants to use the artwork for some other purpose, that is
> not our issue (although I that the GPL license would be the relevant
> determinant.)
>
> What do others think?
>
> Note, I think we should defer the discussion of what we would use as
> replacement artwork until we resolve the current issue.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> [1]  https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/pull/96
> [2]  http://www.trademarkia.com/xo-78880051.html
> [3]  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-December/003059.html
> [4] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2011-October/014245.html
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20170915/e9caec6f/attachment.html>