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

[Samson Goddy]

On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:

The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be
going around  in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative
that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that
Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options.

To state the obvious, this discussion is not about whether or not we can
change the xo-computer icon -- we can do that at any time in consultation
with our design team. The discussion is about whether or not we make that
decision on our own terms or be forced into a change.

Motion: To answer the questions posed by the SFC regarding the xo-computer
icon as follows:
(Q1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does
the SLOBs want to keep it there?
(A1) The xo-computer icon has been part of Sugar since we first designed
and built Sugar (beginning in 2006) and we would like to keep it there
until such time as the design team decides there is a reason to change it.
(Q2) 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?
(A2) Sugar Artwork, including the xo-computer icon, is currently licensed
under the GPL and we would like our downstream users to be able to use all
of our artwork under the terms of that license. As far as the use of any
trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion.

I'd appreciate if someone would second this motion and, if it passes, the
results be reported to Tony by Adam, our SFC liaison. Of course, if the
motion does not pass, we will need to continue the discussion.

I second the motion.


regards.

-walter

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
To: SLOBs <slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org>
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>


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>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>

_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20170915/fd5b5ed0/attachment-0001.html>