[IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon
samuel at greenfeld.org
Sat Sep 16 19:19:26 EDT 2017
I agree with Sameer; if we want to debate this, this really needs a
lawyer's opinion. Either that or just asking OLPC Inc. what they consider
Sugar has been using the XO logo for approximately 11 years now. My
non-lawyer opinion is that if someone was to complain, they would be barred
by estoppel for having known about it, but failing to make a claim in a
By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be distributed
because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and Ubuntu cannot be
distributed because it contains the name and logos owned by Canonical?
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org>
> On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote:
> (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.
> There is a (hopefully not intentional?) flaw in this answer. The board was
> in a rush to pass the motion, but it should be more careful when
> communicating with our legal counsel.
> SLOBs, please clarify:
> "(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of our
> artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)"
> Sugar Labs does not distribute Sugar to end users. Instead it distributes
> Sugar to distributors (Debian, Fedora) who have their own downstream
> projects (OLPC, Trisquel, Ubuntu). In turn these distributions are often
> bundled with hardware vendors products or local service provider's
> services: *These last groups are the most threatened by a potential
> Trademark dispute.*
> Does restricting the answer to "users" mean Sugar Labs Oversight Board
> does not care about these actor's freedoms?
> Please also clarify:
> "As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of
> Sugar, we have no opinion. "
> This is contradictory with the previous statement. The terms of the GPL
> provide for licensees to be able to use the source for *any purpose.* A
> Trademarked logo cannot be used for any purpose. This is basically the
> legal reason to keep any Trademark out of the Sugar User Interface.
> Regards and happy Software Freedom Day to all,
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IAEP