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

[Samuel Greenfeld]

But I intentionally gave the very simple examples...

While RHEL/CentOS (and many other open source/commercial hybrid projects)
rebrand their free versions because a complete replacement causes obvious
confusion, these projects themselves include many products with trademarked
names.

Should Sugar refuse to include a Python(tm) editor?  Or change programming
languages because we proudly say Sugar is written in Python(tm)?
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/

Do we then go to JavaScript(tm) which is a trademark of Oracle(R)?

Or be confused with any number of products (shoes, hand lotion, etc.) which
also have trademarks for the "Python" name?

Trademarks come into play primarily when there is confusion.  And OLPC
allegedly muddied the waters early on by allowing their name and logos to
be used by OLPC France, OLPC SF, etc.

It's not clear at this point if there is confusion between Sugar Labs and
OLPC over the logo, except as part of a historical reference which both
companies have.

If there was clear proof that OLPC was using the XO logo to promote Endless
then there might be something.  If OLPC explicitly asked Sugar to change
the icon, then that would be something to be considered.

OLPC's website, while updated, still promotes Sugar on XO-1.75's and the
"XO Laptop Touch" (by specs, likely a XO-4).

Given we still know people at OLPC, and OLPC people who went to Endless, I
would have expected to hear something by now if they formally wanted to
break ties with Sugar.





On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On 16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
>
>
> By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be
> distributed because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and Ubuntu
> cannot be distributed because it contains the name and logos owned by
> Canonical?
>
>
> Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples will serve to clarify
> the issue:
>
> The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from Red Hat Linux in
> order to be able to distribute it legally.
>
> Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article.
>
> *`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a final product
> very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's **branding and logos are changed**
> because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.`*
>
> And I also know that, while you can distribute Ubuntu, you cannot make a
> derivative distribution of it and call it anything-like-buntu, or you will
> have problems with Canonical Inc.
>
> Quoting directly from https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/
> intellectual-property-policy:
>
> *`Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved,
> certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with
> the Trademarks. Otherwise you must** remove and replace the Trademarks**
> and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.`*
>
> As you can see, being this topic such a mess in general, Sugar Labs would
> serve its community well by staying clear of any Trademarks, as a general
> policy.
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20170916/f58d284f/attachment.html>