+1 for the motion. @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay.
Lionel. 2017-09-15 20:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt <h...@laptop.org>: > I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would > like clarification: > > In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Walter do we have written > documentation (in public or not, but somewhere in our hands) that the XO > trademark artwork is (as stated in the motion) "currently licensed under > the GPL" ? > > Do you know who specifically is/was the source of this GPL declaration? > > Separately (if possible!) has this been reviewed as valid by legal counsel? > > *Thanks for clarifying what you can!* > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Samson Goddy <samsongo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be >> going around in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative >> that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that >> Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options. >> >> To state the obvious, this discussion is not about whether or not we can >> change the xo-computer icon -- we can do that at any time in consultation >> with our design team. The discussion is about whether or not we make that >> decision on our own terms or be forced into a change. >> >> Motion: To answer the questions posed by the SFC regarding the >> xo-computer icon as follows: >> (Q1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and >> does the SLOBs want to keep it there? >> (A1) The xo-computer icon has been part of Sugar since we first designed >> and built Sugar (beginning in 2006) and we would like to keep it there >> until such time as the design team decides there is a reason to change it. >> (Q2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what >> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen? E.g., >> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify >> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the >> program? >> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and >> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to >> Sugar? >> (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. >> >> I'd appreciate if someone would second this motion and, if it passes, the >> results be reported to Tony by Adam, our SFC liaison. Of course, if the >> motion does not pass, we will need to continue the discussion. >> >> I second the motion. >> >> >> regards. >> >> -walter >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> >> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM >> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon >> To: SLOBs <sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org> >> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel <sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org> >> >> >> As probably most of you are aware, yesterday one of our community members >> unilaterally changed the xo-computer icon in sugar-artwork. The ensuing >> discussion about the change is in the github pull request, "Urgent fix >> logos", [1] >> >> The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork >> [2] and there was concern that we were infringing and consequently >> downstream users would also be infringing. >> >> As Sean Daly points out, this is not the first time that the topic has >> come up [3, 4]. "In the past, OLPC was amenable to the use of the xo >> logo in Sugar, but asked we not use it in marketing materials without a >> formal co-branding licensing agreement." >> >> Personally, I think that OLPC was explicit in making the Sugar artwork >> available under a GPL licence and that this is hence moot. But I am not >> qualified to make that assessment. Consequently, I asked Adam Holt, our SFC >> liaison, to raise the issue with the legal team. Tony asked us to consider >> the following questions: >> >> 1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and does >> the SLOBs want to keep it there? >> 2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what >> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen? E.g., >> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and modify >> Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in the >> program? >> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and >> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to >> Sugar? >> >> The answer to the first part of Tony's first question is that the XO logo >> was part of Sugar from the very beginning -- before Sugar Labs was split >> from OLPC. We've never changed it. >> >> Regarding the second part: does the SLOBs want to keep it there? is >> something we need to discuss. Personally, I think it serves its purpose >> well -- a childcentric interface and it is "iconic" of Sugar. I see no >> reason to change it. >> >> Regarding Tony's second question, I would want downstream users to have >> as much freedom as possible: to use or not use the XO icon as they choose. >> However, I don't see the need to expand beyond the context of Sugar. If >> someone downstream wants to use the artwork for some other purpose, that is >> not our issue (although I that the GPL license would be the relevant >> determinant.) >> >> What do others think? >> >> Note, I think we should defer the discussion of what we would use as >> replacement artwork until we resolve the current issue. >> >> regards. >> >> -walter >> >> [1] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/pull/96 >> [2] http://www.trademarkia.com/xo-78880051.html >> [3] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-December/003059.html >> [4] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2011-October/014245.html >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> <http://www.sugarlabs.org> >> >> >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> <http://www.sugarlabs.org> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> i...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> i...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> >> -- >> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep> >> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep> >> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ >> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep>http://unleashkids.org ! >> > > _______________________________________________ > SLOBs mailing list > sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs > >
_______________________________________________ Lista olpc-Sur olpc-Sur@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur