<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CADf7C8vemiASTOAx8s6YSSDatpcc+AhY=ddW+ZuhZ-jViqEbSw@mail.gmail.com">(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.</blockquote> 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: <blockquote>"(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of our artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)" </blockquote> 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: <blockquote>"As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of Sugar, we have no opinion. " </blockquote> 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 </body> </html>