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

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org> wrote:

> I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would
> like clarification:
>
> In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Walter do we have written
> documentation (in public or not, but somewhere in our hands) that the XO
> trademark artwork is (as stated in the motion) "currently licensed under
> the GPL" ?
>
> Do you know who specifically is/was the source of this GPL declaration?
>

As far as I recall, the Sugar team was the source of the declaration. I was
President of Software for OLPC at the time and a member of the team. The
GPL COPYING file is included with Sugar Artwork:

https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/blob/master/COPYING

The last change to this file, according to git, was 10 years ago.


> Separately (if possible!) has this been reviewed as valid by legal counsel?
>

I thought that was why we were asking for Tony's involvement.

>
>
> *Thanks for clarifying what you can!*
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 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
>>
>> --
>> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep>
>> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep>
>> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
>> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep>http://unleashkids.org !
>>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20170915/8f7ac9b5/attachment-0001.html>