[Sugar-devel] [RELEASE] Sugar-Artwork 0.111-libre unstable

Christian Stroetmann stroetmann at ontolab.com
Fri Sep 15 13:23:12 EDT 2017

Hello Walter

I did not knew the history, so please dump my related points 1, 2, 3, and 4.

What I am wondering now is the fact that OLPC licensed its trademark 
under the GPL, which from my point of view would mean that they have 
given up its trademark rights already respectively it makes no sense 
anymore to keep it in the trademark register because any other entity 
could demand its deleting from the trademark register by referring to 
this GPL licensing.

Best regards
Christian Stroetmann

> Thank you for your synopsis.  I think you make good points. However, I 
> think the situation is further complicated by the fact that OLPC 
> released Sugar Artwork under the GPL prior to the creation of Sugar 
> Labs.  I defer to our lawyer at SFC, to sort through this on our behalf.
> Regards.
> Walter
> On Sep 15, 2017 12:39 PM, "Christian Stroetmann" 
> <stroetmann at ontolab.com <mailto:stroetmann at ontolab.com>> wrote:
>     Hello Everybody
>     I followed the discussion about the OLPC logo with great interest.
>     Sadly to say, I was already running out of popcorn last month.
>     First of all, someone in this threat said the right things about
>     trademarks. I would like to add the following points:
>     1. The OLPC logo is a trademark and as long as Sugarlabs has no
>     written allowance to use it the alleged legal problem exists
>     indeed. But ...
>     3. OLPC has tolerated the use since 2006 and did not change its
>     position after OLPC and Sugarlabs departed. What is developing in
>     this case is a so-called customary right, which means that
>     Sugarlabs might already have the right to use the OLPC logo. I
>     would recommend that OLPC and Sugarlabs get together, pay the fee
>     together, and care for the trademark against misuse together.
>     2. Furthermore, one of the most important points when handling an
>     infringement of a trademark right is how the broad public (e.g.
>     65% of a representative group as accepted by a judge) interprets a
>     sign/logo/trademark and connects it to an entity (e.g. person,
>     organization, corporation) respectively is answering the question
>     if a confusion of the broad public between the trademark owner and
>     the trademark user does exist. The latter might be the case with
>     every logo that is an abstraction of the Vitruvian (see da Vinci)
>     in the case of the OLPC logo and an abstraction or clipart of a
>     foot in the case of the Gnome logo.
>     4. As far as I have noticed it, the OLPC logo is used as a
>     functional icon of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) and hence it
>     is covered by the GPL in an illegal way. Sugarlabs is not allowed
>     to impose any other license on signs/logos/trademarks that it does
>     not own, is not allowed explicitly to use in this way, or has no
>     copyright for.
>     5. I like the OX logo because it is a nice abstraction of the
>     Vitruvian and similar graphics. Nevertheless, an alternative logo
>     or this function that allows to select an individual logo by the
>     users might be interesting as well.
>     6. As far as I noticed, there are children on this mailing list,
>     too, and everybody should be an ideal for them when discussing and
>     solving problems. Somehow, this does not always work as it should
>     do. ;)
>     Best regards
>     Christian Stroetmann
>>     Thank you Sebastian,
>>     This debug was long time due. Now Sugar can be called "Libre" :D
>>     I honestly didn't ever like the OLPC logo icon and the new feet
>>     are very cute!
>>     Regards
>>     2017-09-15 10:08 GMT-05:00 Sebastian Silva
>>     <sebastian at fuentelibre.org <mailto:sebastian at fuentelibre.org>>:
>>         Hello Sugar friends,
>>         I am assuming the responsibility of making a new release of
>>         Sugar-Artwork package featuring the omission of a Trademarked
>>         logo.
>>         To avoid conflicts with incumbent parties, I have not
>>         increased the version number, instead I have tagged the
>>         release as 0.111-libre.
>>         https://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-artwork/sugar-artwork-0.111-libre.tar.xz
>>         <https://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-artwork/sugar-artwork-0.111-libre.tar.xz>
>>         *This release comes with a stern warning to downstream
>>         distributors and users, that the XO computer icon is
>>         trademarked and, in the absence of a suitable (trademark)
>>         license, it constitutes a risk to downstream developers and
>>         deployments.*
>>         Regards,
>>         Sebastian
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Sugar-devel mailing list
>>         Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>         <mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>
>>         http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>         <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel>
>>     -- 
>>     Laura V.
>>     *I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>     “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>>     ~ L. Victoria
>>     Happy Learning!
>>     #LearningByDoing
>>     #Projects4good
>>     #IDesignATSugarLabs
>>     #WeCanDoBetter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20170915/6e385eaf/attachment.html>

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list