+1 Sameer
On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 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 >
_______________________________________________ Lista olpc-Sur olpc-Sur@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur