[SoaS] What distro is sugaronastick.com distributing? (was: Re: SoaS decision panel: Do we ignore/protest two week deadline?/Starting deliberations?)

[Tim McNamara]

Caroline,
Thank you for your detailed response.

For the record, I commend Solution Groves for finding innovative ways to
commercialise the product. However, I have concerns that failing to address
an apparent (to me) abuse of Sugar Labs' IP in one instance, will make it
more difficult to address if it were to occur again. I'm not an IP lawyer,
but my understanding is that if Sugar Labs fails to enforce its IP rights,
then those IP rights lose their value. Given all of that, I will mostly
restrict myself to the trade mark discussion. Wider discussion is probably
more likely to be corrosive than productive!


2009/10/14 Caroline Meeks <caroline at solutiongrove.com>

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Tim McNamara <paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz
> > wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/10 Martin Dengler <martin at martindengler.com>
>>
>>> b) what feedback from the SoaS / Sugar Labs community was sought
>>> before Solution Grove registered a domain name that was the exact same
>>> as a distribution the creation of which was substantially not done by
>>> Solution Grove (I was not involved at this point).
>>>
>>
>> I'm new to the list, but to me http://sugaronastick.com is a very
>> interesting case. I didn't realise this site *wasn't* endorsed by Sugar
>> Labs, given that there is so much Sugar Labs branding on the site.
>>
>
> Is not yet endorsed by Sugar Labs because there is no mechanism for doing
> so.  Walter has been trying to find time to sit down and talk to me for over
> a month but has not been able to. I have talked to Sean and others.
>
>
I don't know USA trade mark law. (Note, there's a space, it's just New
Zealand spelling conventions ;) However, my understanding is that if there
is no mechanism for endorsement, then consent to use or a licence to use the
trade mark cannot occur. This would mean that Solution Groves then cannot be
using that trade mark without infringing Sugar Labs' right.


> I rather doubt we'll end up in court.
>

Agreed. It's highly that a group of volunteers would litigate to have the
registered intellectual property removed from a commercial website. But that
doesn't mean that Solution Grove is not infringing on Sugar Labs' exclusive
rights over that registered intellectual property.


>  We are all on the same side here.  Walter and Sean and Mike Lee (its his
> photos) all had advanced notice before the site went up. I registered the
> domain name way back in February.  None of them had any issues prior to my
> announcement of the site.
>

In the previous paragraph, you said that there is "no mechanism" for
licencing the trade mark, yet you're relying on a the mechanism of
(unwritten?) acceptance by leaders of Sugar Labs community. Either there is
a mechanism, or there's not. I'm happy either way. As I mentioned, I'm new
here and just wanted clarification.

<snip>


> Thank you all for caring so much!  I think back to the pitch I made back in
> November 2008 and the amazing progress we have made since then and I am very
> grateful.
>
> Caroline
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/attachments/20091014/26efe296/attachment.htm