[Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] xo-computer icon

[Martin Abente]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Laura Vargas <laura at somosazucar.org> wrote:

> Walter,
>
> Nobody needs to be a lawyer to understand this.
>
> *We (sugar labs users) simply didn't have permission to do use therefore
> it was removed.*
>
>
> Any one else interested in Sugar UI in the Community is welcome to join
> forces and help me address this issue as an opportunity for the Community
> to work together engaging in a Collaborative Design Dynamic and if required
> define a more suitable substitute for Sebastian's commit.
>

How can you say "work together" and "engaging in a Collaborative design"
while Sebastian just pushed to master his own design unilaterally. Revert
it, and then someone might take this invitation seriously.


>
> I personally love the feet. They set a clear starting point for the Sugar
> experience and they look very cute. Try it changing the colors here, see
> how it looks:
>
> http://laboratoriosazucar.org/azucarizador/
>
> My young children really liked them, also several teachers in SM.
>
> I will test further among our programming students as well.
>
>
> Regards
>
> 2017-09-14 6:08 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Laura Vargas <laura at somosazucar.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Legislation in Latinamerica is very restrictive regarding Trademark
>>> policies.
>>>
>>> If OLPC fans want to keep the old logo in their own version of Sugar
>>> that is OK, but not possible in the main branch.
>>>
>>
>> Laura,
>>
>> I would appreciate you stop you speculations and assertions about
>> trademark law and let Tony do his job. He asked some very specific
>> questions. I would appreciate that you try to address them.
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> 2017-09-13 19:48 GMT-05:00 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", [1]
>>>>
>>>> The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork
>>>> [2] 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 program?
>>>> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and
>>>> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to
>>>> Sugar?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> determinant.)
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> regards.
>>>>
>>>> -walter
>>>>
>>>> [1]  https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/pull/96
>>>> [2]  http://www.trademarkia.com/xo-78880051.html
>>>> [3]  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-December/003059.html
>>>> [4] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2011-October/014245.html
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Walter Bender
>>>> Sugar Labs
>>>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>>> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> SLOBs mailing list
>>>> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laura V.
>>> * I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>>
>>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>>> ~ L. Victoria
>>>
>>> Happy Learning!
>>> #LearningByDoing
>>> #Projects4good
>>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20170914/b5e5a046/attachment.html>