[SoaS] updating the draft decision panel report

[Sean DALY]

The marketing list has again disappeared, I have added it back, again.

This seems reasonable, but all it would do is compromise Sugar on a
Stick as a meaningful name. Let's say I repackage generic covered
plastic bowls and call it Super Tupperware. No problem, right? And
let's say the covers don't fit and everybody's food goes bad. Still no
problem? And let's say people get sick and decide to complain to
Tupperware, because nobody understands the difference between
Tupperware and Super Tupperware, except some people who got both and
say the "original" Tupperware is in fact much better, but most people
aren't aware of that (they just Google for tupperware and go for the
first sponsored link they see). Meanwhile, I close out Super
Tupperware because of the problems and reopen as Mega Tupperware. See
the problem in this scenario?

This is why trademark law exists... to protect the work that goes into
building a brand. A brand isn't just a name pasted on top... it's the
quality of the product, its ecosystem, its support, its growth and
development vision, its values, its contributors. Users see the logo
and think of all of these. Tupperware would come down like a hawk on
me if I started calling anything I want Tupperware, not because they
are evil legal beavers, but because they want people to continue
thinking that Tupperware means good quality, useful, attractive
plasticware demonstrated and delivered and supported locally, and they
don't want those values - that brand equity - damaged.

Rather than imagine hypothetical projects, I think it's more
productive to think about working with existing distros, and desktops
too in particular Gnome. I'm still not seeing the problem with
welcoming other distros which would like to implement Sugar, either on
liveUSB, in an LTSP architecture, or other. We want Sugar to run on
all kinds of hardware, while being easy to try for newcomers.

Ubuntu is perhaps the best-known GNU/Linux desktop distro today
outside of techie geek circles. It's well-known because of Canonical's
marketing expense and the work of countless LoCo Teams over a solid
product. So if I slap together a new distro and a three-page website
and call the project Mubuntu, is that OK or not? How about Redora? Or
OpenZooz?

The most generic term for what Sugar on a Stick is "a liveUSB version
of Sugar". USB removable media is called USB stick, USB thumbdrive,
USB key, USB pendrive. There's ample room for creative marketers to
find names other than Sugar on a Stick.

An unknown brand with focus and a clear message can succeed. I say
can, because lots of other factors are involved including luck. But,
an unknown brand without focus won't succeed. For Sugar on a Stick to
mean anything, especially in terms of support, Sugar Labs has to call
the shots. And, while Sugar on a Stick is our marketing pillar, other
Sugar Labs projects exist and yet others will see the light of day.

I'm as eager as anyone to see creative solutions for breaking the
installation barrier. For all we know, an effective future version of
Sugar on a Stick may be a netbook implementation booting Sugar off an
XS server and writing individual Journals to students' cloud storage.
For now, we have to nurture and protect what we have, so it can grow.

Sean


On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi...
>
> It's sort of like root beer...
>
> You can buy A&W or Barq's or other private labels... or make your own. It is
> still "root beer."
>
> Sugar on a Stick is really exactly what it says, Sugar running on a usb
> stick. It is a very descriptive label.  To call other distributions of Sugar
> on a usb stick something else would be confusing. However, calling it say,
> "Blueberry Sugar on a Stick by Sugar Labs" or "Orange Sugar on a Stick by
> Skunk Works" would distinguish the developer and variety without being
> confusing and still tell folks what it is.
>
> Then they could tell one another... "get the Blueberry by SugarLabs, it's
> much better than Skunk Works' Orange."
>
> Remember your, generally, technologically  innocent (not all of them)
> intended end user.
>
> Caryl
>
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:31:33 +0000
>> From: martin at martindengler.com
>> To: cbigenho at hotmail.com
>> CC: dmc.sugar at filteredperception.org; tabitha at hrdnz.com;
>> soas at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: [SoaS] updating the draft decision panel report
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:08:22PM -0800, Caryl Bigenho wrote:
>>
>> I'm having trouble squaring this with your earlier
>> statement[1]. Aren't you saying both:
>>
>> > > [let's allow lots of "Sugar On A Stick" products]
>>
>> and[2]:
>>
>> > [too many names are confusing]
>>
>> Please can you explain how to reconcile both [1] and [2].
>>
>> > Caryl
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> 1.
>> > > Hi... I guess I've become the minority. I still believe that the
>> > > name "Sugar On A Stick" should be allowed for all distributions of
>> > > Sugar on a usb stick or even a live CD. Sugar Labs can control
>> > > and identify their special builds in a special way... "SoaS by
>> > > SugarLabs" or whatever, but the term has already become so generic
>> > > that trying to make it exclusive at this point seems to be a waste
>> > > of time and energy.
>>
>> 2.
>> > Having many different names for different versions of Sugar on a usb
>> > stick will only confuse them.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SoaS mailing list
> SoaS at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
>
>