[Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] xo-computer icon
lionel.laske at gmail.com
Thu Sep 14 07:07:01 EDT 2017
I don't see here a valid reason to change it.
The XO buddy is also the Sugarizer icon (used as icon on Stores). OLPC Inc
is aware of that. I've discussed with them few months ago and they even
promote it on their website . So I don't have intention to change it
BTW anyone is free to fork the Sugarizer repo, replace the buddy icon by a
foot, a panda, a smiley, a pile of poo or anything else and freely
distribute it. I don't have any problem with that.
2017-09-14 2:48 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>:
> 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", 
> The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork 
> 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
> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
> 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
> 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.
>  https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/pull/96
>  http://www.trademarkia.com/xo-78880051.html
>  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-December/003059.html
>  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2011-October/014245.html
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel