[IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] prep for Friday's meeting

[Sean DALY]

Per the last SLOBs meeting, and this mail
(http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2010-January/002621.html)
cc'd to the SLOBs, I had reflected for some time on this and come to
the conclusion that it can't be done the way we want to do it without
approval - abuse will be too simple.

Aside from Walter, none of the SLOBs cc'd on that mail responded, I
ask the other SLOBs to please try to understand my position so we can
wrap this up. i will have new text to propose as well.

thanks

Sean


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   > Chris, not sure how well this matches up with your understanding,
>   > but my reading of what you wrote makes it appear to me as if
>   > they're the same.
>
> I like it!
>
> I don't think you need to ask_SLOBs() about any "<product>, <joined
> with> <SL mark>" formulation -- my reading of 2(b) is that such a
> formulation (regardless of which <product> or <joined with> words
> are used) would not require written permission.
>
> So, here's a patch.  :)
>
> --- old 2010-01-20 22:56:35.000000000 -0500
> +++ new 2010-01-20 22:56:41.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>
>      if SL_software_bundled_as_distinct_component == True:
> -         if name in acceptable_list:
> +         if name in acceptable_list ||
> +         name.matches("<product>, <joined with> <SL mark>"):
>              return "Yes, you have clearance to use the marks."
>          else:
> -             ask_SLOBs("<product>, <joined with> <SL mark>")
> +             ask_SLOBs("<your proposed use>")
>
>
> (I think the way to apply both patches to the draft is just to change
> "with prior written" back to "without prior written" in the preamble
> of §2.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Chris.
> --
> Chris Ball   <cjb at laptop.org>
> One Laptop Per Child
> _______________________________________________
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>