Typed Copy of John Tierney written Notes of Key Points from
SLOBs Trademark Discussion Monday night April 12th 2010 at
OLPC Offices-Cambridge, MA.
I believe I have cc'd everyone who was at meeting
plus Bernie, sorry if I missed someone.
(Please understand these were not minutes but personal notes,
so please add comments or clarifications)
Sean Daly
-Tech PR
-Build Brand
Logo/Symbol-Meaning
What Does it Stand For
Values
Discrimination/Exclusion-Means this, not that
-Platform
Ecosystem Activities
-Example
Adobe Labeling Program
Intel Labeling Program
-Which Allows for
Revenue Stream From OEM
Control Shaping of Brand
Chris Ball
-Agreement
Label O.K.
Revenue O.K.
Smaller Set
-Distribution of Code
Unmodified Sugar Code Being Used By Someone-O.K.
Unmodified Sugar Code with Slight Modifications-Translation, etc.-O.K.
Modified Code-Must Ask
-Example
Ziff.org-Write Codecs
GPL-Mention License Author Source
Areas of Agreement on Cases where potential partner must ask for Trademark use
0. Encouraging Phrases**
1. Websites-Must Ask
2. Modified Versions-Must Ask
3. Reserved Names("Sugar on a Stick")-Must Ask
4. Logo Program-Must Ask
5. Mostly Unmodified-Must Ask
**(This zero point was mentioned by Chris Ball actually last I didn't record
what he might of actually titled this, this was the words I was using)
A few themes I took away from the meeting are as follows:
Encourage vs. Discourage
Unmodified vs. Modified
Logo Program-With Gradations of involvement(Possibly 3 to 4 Different Logos for
Partners depending on
level of involvement. Possible to have one Logo to show partners with
Modified Sugar Code)
My thought would be if we can focus on the Encourage and Logo Program Themes, I
think it will help us come
up with final wording that displays Sugar Labs as a Proactive/
Inclusive/Collaborative Partner.
A suggestion to achieve this would be to:
Quickly come up with the names for the labeling program along
with what level of involvement and/or unmodified/modified Sugar Code that
involves.
We in turn need to work on Logo's but are not necessary to written copy
**Sean can you post a draft outline of Labeling Program to begin discussion**
With a Labeling/Logo Description in place by default those definitions will
answer many of the use cases. We can then take
the January 15 2010 Draft and build that language around Labeling Program with
an aim to use encouraging/inclusive
and clearer language.
These two portions in particular seem somewhat contradictory in language after
reading them and
comparing them to notes and meeting discussion. Hopefully Labeling Program can
absorb these two
parts and allow for a clear differentiation in use cases and proper interaction
with Sugar Labs to
benefit the parties involved.
2a.
To refer to the Sugar Labs software in substantially unmodified form
"substantially unmodified" means built from
the source code provided by the Sugar Labs project, possibly with minor
modifications including but not limited to:
the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into
other languages, changes required for
compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, or the inclusion
of bug-fix patches). All such minor
modifications must be released under an approved license.
**It seems to say you can use with some minor modifications but then says all
minor modifications must be
released with approved license***
3.
You may use the Sugar Labs Marks as part of the name of a product designed to
work with Sugar Labs, so long
as the name as a whole (via its other components) clearly and unambiguously
distinguishes the product from Sugar
Labs software itself, and the general presentation of the product does not
imply any official association or identity
with Sugar Labs. Because it would be awkward to attach a trademark symbol to a
portion of a larger name whose
other portions might themselves be trademarked, the requirement to display the
symbol is waived for this circumstance.
***It would seem if the Sugar Labs Marks were part of the name of a product
that would indicate that there is a
perceived official relationship or identity to Sugar Labs which then
contradicts with the next statement***
Example: If I trademark "JT Linux" and then sell a product "JT Linux with Sugar
on Board" from the reading above
I'm confused if I could do that or not. From the meeting my understanding is
that I could.
Since many of the individuals who end up redistributing Sugar may very well be
of the non-technical nature(in a writing/
coding/distributing Software sense) we must try to use language that encourages
them and shy away from technical/legal
language that may discourage/intimidate a potential deployer of the Sugar
Learning Platform.
Again please fill in areas of importance that I have missed.
Appreciate the Chance to Participate!
John Tierney
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
