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

[Laura Vargas]

Hello Samuel,

Back on 2015, on the historic "Planning for the Future" thread you shared
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2015-February/017198.html>on IAEP
(Sugar Labs supported mailing list) your concern "that Sugar needed to
ensure it had long-term sponsorship and a long-term user base."


*I agree with you and it was one of the reasons to make Sugar UI
machine-vendor neutral.*
You also mention long term planning for Sugar Labs & OLPC and how they both
need to come up with long-term strategies. From your disclaimer it is not
clear if you were at the time an employee of OLPC.



*We Sugar Labs, as far as I as Board Member since 2017 know, don't have any
contractual relationship with this computer vendor.Sugar Labs needs its
members to urgently disassociate Sugar and Sugar Labs from this computer
vendor.*

It's hurting our neutrality and our capacity to evolve Sugar.

Regards,

Laura V



2017-09-17 8:13 GMT-05:00 Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org>:

> "What is legally required, as regards other people’s trademarks, is to *avoid
> using them* in ways which a reader might reasonably understand *as*
> naming or *labeling* *our own* programs or *activities*." [1]
>
>     - citing from the GNU Coding standards, section 2.3 "Trademarks"
>
>     https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Trademarks.html
> Emphasis added by me.
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian
>
>
> On 16/09/17 21:18, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
>
> But I intentionally gave the very simple examples...
>
> While RHEL/CentOS (and many other open source/commercial hybrid projects)
> rebrand their free versions because a complete replacement causes obvious
> confusion, these projects themselves include many products with trademarked
> names.
>
> Should Sugar refuse to include a Python(tm) editor?  Or change programming
> languages because we proudly say Sugar is written in Python(tm)?
> https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
>
> Do we then go to JavaScript(tm) which is a trademark of Oracle(R)?
>
> Or be confused with any number of products (shoes, hand lotion, etc.)
> which also have trademarks for the "Python" name?
>
> Trademarks come into play primarily when there is confusion.  And OLPC
> allegedly muddied the waters early on by allowing their name and logos to
> be used by OLPC France, OLPC SF, etc.
>
> It's not clear at this point if there is confusion between Sugar Labs and
> OLPC over the logo, except as part of a historical reference which both
> companies have.
>
> If there was clear proof that OLPC was using the XO logo to promote
> Endless then there might be something.  If OLPC explicitly asked Sugar to
> change the icon, then that would be something to be considered.
>
> OLPC's website, while updated, still promotes Sugar on XO-1.75's and the
> "XO Laptop Touch" (by specs, likely a XO-4).
>
> Given we still know people at OLPC, and OLPC people who went to Endless, I
> would have expected to hear something by now if they formally wanted to
> break ties with Sugar.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Sebastian Silva <
> sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples will serve to clarify
>> the issue:
>>
>> The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from Red Hat Linux in
>> order to be able to distribute it legally.
>>
>> Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article.
>>
>> *`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a final product
>> very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's **branding and logos are changed**
>> because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.`*
>>
>> And I also know that, while you can distribute Ubuntu, you cannot make a
>> derivative distribution of it and call it anything-like-buntu, or you will
>> have problems with Canonical Inc.
>>
>> Quoting directly from https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/t
>> erms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy:
>>
>> *`Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved,
>> certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with
>> the Trademarks. Otherwise you must** remove and replace the Trademarks**
>> and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.`*
>>
>> As you can see, being this topic such a mess in general, Sugar Labs would
>> serve its community well by staying clear of any Trademarks, as a general
>> policy.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sebastian
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
Laura V.
* I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ L. Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20170917/bcbb762c/attachment.html>