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

[Gonzalo Odiard]

According to the result of this motion, sugar-artwork repository should be
updated.

Gonzalo

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Samuel Greenfeld <samuel at greenfeld.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Sameer; if we want to debate this, this really needs a
>> lawyer's opinion.  Either that or just asking OLPC Inc. what they consider
>> acceptable.
>>
>
> In fact, getting a lawyer's opinion is exactly what we are doing.
>
>>
>> Sugar has been using the XO logo for approximately 11 years now.  My
>> non-lawyer opinion is that if someone was to complain, they would be barred
>> by estoppel for having known about it, but failing to make a claim in a
>> timely manner.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Silva <
>> sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote:
>>>
>>> (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.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a (hopefully not intentional?) flaw in this answer. The board
>>> was in a rush to pass the motion, but it should be more careful when
>>> communicating with our legal counsel.
>>>
>>> SLOBs, please clarify:
>>>
>>> "(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of our
>>> artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)"
>>>
>>> Sugar Labs does not distribute Sugar to end users. Instead it
>>> distributes Sugar to distributors (Debian, Fedora) who have their own
>>> downstream projects (OLPC, Trisquel, Ubuntu). In turn these distributions
>>> are often bundled with hardware vendors products or local service
>>> provider's services: *These last groups are the most threatened by a
>>> potential Trademark dispute.*
>>>
>>> Does restricting the answer to "users" mean Sugar Labs Oversight Board
>>> does not care about these actor's freedoms?
>>>
>>> Please also clarify:
>>>
>>> "As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of
>>> Sugar, we have no opinion. "
>>>
>>> This is contradictory with the previous statement. The terms of the GPL
>>> provide for licensees to be able to use the source for *any purpose.* A
>>> Trademarked logo cannot be used for any purpose. This is basically the
>>> legal reason to keep any Trademark out of the Sugar User Interface.
>>>
>>> Regards and happy Software Freedom Day to all,
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
[image: photo]
*Gonzalo Odiard*
Lider de proyecto
tel.:  <tel.:+4210-7748>2081-6424 y 2082-0312 | www.trinom.io    Av
Calchaqui 4936· 2do Piso. Quilmes
<http://www.facebook.com/trinomiosrl>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/trinom-io>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20170922/acb0999b/attachment.html>