Hello Samuel, Back on 2015, on the historic "Planning for the Future" thread you shared <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2015-February/017198.html>on IAEP (Sugar Labs supported mailing list) your concern "that Sugar needed to ensure it had long-term sponsorship and a long-term user base."
*I agree with you and it was one of the reasons to make Sugar UI machine-vendor neutral.* You also mention long term planning for Sugar Labs & OLPC and how they both need to come up with long-term strategies. From your disclaimer it is not clear if you were at the time an employee of OLPC. *We Sugar Labs, as far as I as Board Member since 2017 know, don't have any contractual relationship with this computer vendor.Sugar Labs needs its members to urgently disassociate Sugar and Sugar Labs from this computer vendor.* It's hurting our neutrality and our capacity to evolve Sugar. Regards, Laura V 2017-09-17 8:13 GMT-05:00 Sebastian Silva <sebast...@fuentelibre.org>: > "What is legally required, as regards other people’s trademarks, is to *avoid > using them* in ways which a reader might reasonably understand *as* > naming or *labeling* *our own* programs or *activities*." [1] > > - citing from the GNU Coding standards, section 2.3 "Trademarks" > > https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Trademarks.html > Emphasis added by me. > > Regards, > Sebastian > > > On 16/09/17 21:18, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > > But I intentionally gave the very simple examples... > > While RHEL/CentOS (and many other open source/commercial hybrid projects) > rebrand their free versions because a complete replacement causes obvious > confusion, these projects themselves include many products with trademarked > names. > > Should Sugar refuse to include a Python(tm) editor? Or change programming > languages because we proudly say Sugar is written in Python(tm)? > https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ > > Do we then go to JavaScript(tm) which is a trademark of Oracle(R)? > > Or be confused with any number of products (shoes, hand lotion, etc.) > which also have trademarks for the "Python" name? > > Trademarks come into play primarily when there is confusion. And OLPC > allegedly muddied the waters early on by allowing their name and logos to > be used by OLPC France, OLPC SF, etc. > > It's not clear at this point if there is confusion between Sugar Labs and > OLPC over the logo, except as part of a historical reference which both > companies have. > > If there was clear proof that OLPC was using the XO logo to promote > Endless then there might be something. If OLPC explicitly asked Sugar to > change the icon, then that would be something to be considered. > > OLPC's website, while updated, still promotes Sugar on XO-1.75's and the > "XO Laptop Touch" (by specs, likely a XO-4). > > Given we still know people at OLPC, and OLPC people who went to Endless, I > would have expected to hear something by now if they formally wanted to > break ties with Sugar. > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Sebastian Silva < > sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: >> >> >> 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? >> >> >> Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples will serve to clarify >> the issue: >> >> The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from Red Hat Linux in >> order to be able to distribute it legally. >> >> Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article. >> >> *`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a final product >> very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's **branding and logos are changed** >> because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.`* >> >> And I also know that, while you can distribute Ubuntu, you cannot make a >> derivative distribution of it and call it anything-like-buntu, or you will >> have problems with Canonical Inc. >> >> Quoting directly from https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/t >> erms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy: >> >> *`Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, >> certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with >> the Trademarks. Otherwise you must** remove and replace the Trademarks** >> and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.`* >> >> As you can see, being this topic such a mess in general, Sugar Labs would >> serve its community well by staying clear of any Trademarks, as a general >> policy. >> >> Regards, >> Sebastian >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Laura V. * I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org* “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” ~ L. Victoria Happy Learning! #LearningByDoing #Projects4good #IDesignATSugarLabs #WeCanDoBetter
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep