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

[Walter Bender]

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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20170916/9eb5b05f/attachment-0001.html>