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

Martin Abente martin.abente.lahaye at gmail.com
Fri Sep 15 14:04:46 EDT 2017

Another unilateral action from Sebastian, and a unprecedented new low.

This "release" cannot be taken seriously.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Christian Stroetmann <
stroetmann at ontolab.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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>:
>>> 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
>>> *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
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170915/7bcf422d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list