On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Samuel Greenfeld <sam...@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 < > sebast...@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@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> > > > _______________________________________________ > SLOBs mailing list > sl...@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@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep