Re: [IAEP] [sugar-sur] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Acknowledgment of translation request (was Re: [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon)

[Ryan Cunningham]

Enviado desde mi iPod

> El sept 15, 2017, a las 21:30, Ryan Cunningham 
>  escribió:
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi iPod
> El sept 15, 2017, a las 13:39, Laura Vargas  escribió:
> 
>> Walter,  Adam,
>> 
>> Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to Tony 
>> in the first place?
>> 
>> Can you please clarify.
>> 
>> Procedure Note: In my opinion such legal related motions should be 
>> translated to Sugar Labs main users language: Spanish. This takes time but 
>> needs to be done so that real Sugar users can understand what the Oversight 
>> is requesting.
> 
> I am happy to do that!
> 
> I am Ryan Cunningham, and I have lots of second-language experience in 
> Spanish. As far as I remember, I have attended two Spanish classes in middle 
> school (taught by Sally Unger) and three in high school (two taught by Derek 
> Hite and one by Sandra Miller). I have also traveled twice to Panama and once 
> to Spain (including to Catalonia, which desires to separate from Spain), and 
> I have also watched a few episodes of "Plaza Sésamo," the adaptation of 
> "Sesame Street" into the Spanish language for Latin American audiences.
> 
> (By the way, I have previously sent e-mail messages to this list in English 
> and Spanish.)
> 
> Before you make the choice to accept me into or deny me this job, you should 
> know that I cannot handle any requirement for recurring payment; and you also 
> should know that I do not charge any money for my translations, the original 
> documents of which I require to be submitted in English (preferably by 
> e-mail).

Also, I believe this is outside the scope of Sugar's use of the Translation 
Project Web site, since I will be translating directive motions, not software.

In addition, I ask that you send the original materials in the form of a 
private message to me (not on the list). My address is in the headers of this 
message.

> (I am not going to translate this message into Spanish for now, because the 
> rest of the thread to this point has also been exclusively in English. I will 
> translate the message if you request.)
> 
>> 
>> Regards 
>> 
>> 2017-09-15 15:26 GMT-05:00 Martin Dengler :
>>> 
>>> > On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > +1 for the motion.
>>> >
>>> > @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay.
>>> 
>>> Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the wiki 
>>> had been updated already (not by me) so I figured as the wiki had been 
>>> updated and the outcome was not in doubt it was ok to summarize it in an 
>>> email. I agree the delay should govern in the future.
>>> 
>>> >   Lionel.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> ___
>>> SLOBs mailing list
>>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Laura V.
>> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>> 
>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” 
>> ~ L. Victoria
>> 
>> Happy Learning!
>> #LearningByDoing
>> #Projects4good
>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>> #WeCanDoBetter
>> ___
>> sugar-sur mailing list
>> sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-sur
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my iPod
> ___
> sugar-sur mailing list
> sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-sur
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] [sugar-sur] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Acknowledgment of translation request (was Re: [sugar-sur] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon)

[Ryan Cunningham]

Enviado desde mi iPod
> El sept 15, 2017, a las 13:39, Laura Vargas  escribió:
> 
> Walter,  Adam,
> 
> Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to Tony 
> in the first place?
> 
> Can you please clarify.
> 
> Procedure Note: In my opinion such legal related motions should be translated 
> to Sugar Labs main users language: Spanish. This takes time but needs to be 
> done so that real Sugar users can understand what the Oversight is requesting.

I am happy to do that!

I am Ryan Cunningham, and I have lots of second-language experience in Spanish. 
As far as I remember, I have attended two Spanish classes in middle school 
(taught by Sally Unger) and three in high school (two taught by Derek Hite and 
one by Sandra Miller). I have also traveled twice to Panama and once to Spain 
(including to Catalonia, which desires to separate from Spain), and I have also 
watched a few episodes of "Plaza Sésamo," the adaptation of "Sesame Street" 
into the Spanish language for Latin American audiences.

(By the way, I have previously sent e-mail messages to this list in English and 
Spanish.)

Before you make the choice to accept me into or deny me this job, you should 
know that I cannot handle any requirement for recurring payment; and you also 
should know that I do not charge any money for my translations, the original 
documents of which I require to be submitted in English (preferably by e-mail).

(I am not going to translate this message into Spanish for now, because the 
rest of the thread to this point has also been exclusively in English. I will 
translate the message if you request.)

> 
> Regards 
> 
> 2017-09-15 15:26 GMT-05:00 Martin Dengler :
>> 
>> > On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 for the motion.
>> >
>> > @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay.
>> 
>> Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the wiki 
>> had been updated already (not by me) so I figured as the wiki had been 
>> updated and the outcome was not in doubt it was ok to summarize it in an 
>> email. I agree the delay should govern in the future.
>> 
>> >   Lionel.
>> 
>> Martin
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
> 
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” 
> ~ L. Victoria
> 
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
> ___
> sugar-sur mailing list
> sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-sur

-- 
Sent from my iPod___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Laura Vargas]

Walter,

I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to
address legal issues to Conservancy.

The procedure you (SLOB) follow the first time you want to address
Conservancy was to just ask Adam (Sugar Labs rep to SFC) to make a question
to Tony.

The procedure you (SLOB) follow the second time was to ask SLOBs to approve
an answer t (Sugar Labs rep to SFC) to make a question to Tony.

I thank in advance to please specify, why do you follow two different
procedures for the same process?

Regards,

Laura

2017-09-15 15:59 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Laura Vargas 
> wrote:
>
>> Walter,  Adam,
>>
>> Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to
>> Tony in the first place?
>>
>> Can you please clarify.
>>
>
> Tony asked for the opinion of the oversight board to several questions. I
> posted those questions several days ago and while a discussion ensued, no
> one (except me) actually answered the questions. I chose to make a motion
> in order to focus on the questions that Tony had posed and to move things
> along since there are several members of the community who have said that
> this issue is urgent.
>
>>
>> Procedure Note: In my opinion such legal related motions should be
>> translated to Sugar Labs main users language: Spanish. This takes time but
>> needs to be done so that real Sugar users can understand what the Oversight
>> is requesting.
>>
>
> We certainly can discuss this. We'd need some mechanism to execute it.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> 2017-09-15 15:26 GMT-05:00 Martin Dengler :
>>
>>>
>>> > On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > +1 for the motion.
>>> >
>>> > @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting
>>> delay.
>>>
>>> Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the
>>> wiki had been updated already (not by me) so I figured as the wiki had been
>>> updated and the outcome was not in doubt it was ok to summarize it in an
>>> email. I agree the delay should govern in the future.
>>>
>>> >   Lionel.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>> ___
>>> SLOBs mailing list
>>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>
>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>> ~ L. Victoria
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>> #LearningByDoing
>> #Projects4good
>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>
>> ___
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>



-- 
Laura V.
* I 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

Re: [IAEP] [OLPC-SF] OLPC-SF meeting postponed

[Sameer Verma]

Our September meeting will be tomorrow, Sept 16 in room 607 at the SFSU
Downtown Center.

835 Market St.
San Francisco CA 94103
10am to 1 pm

Sameer

On Sep 8, 2017 8:49 PM, "Andreas Gros"  wrote:

> Great! Looking forward to it
> Andi
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:20 AM Aaron Borden  wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> There's been some trouble booking a space for our monthly meeting. We're
>> going to push it back to next week. We're hoping to do more of a working
>> session for this month's meeting. I'll send out more details once we have
>> them.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aaron D Borden
>> Human and hacker
>> Sent from my mobile
>> ___
>> OLPC-SF mailing list
>> olpc...@lists.laptop.org
>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sf
>>
>
> ___
> OLPC-SF mailing list
> olpc...@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sf
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Adam Holt  wrote:

> 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?
>

As far as I recall, the Sugar team was the source of the declaration. I was
President of Software for OLPC at the time and a member of the team. The
GPL COPYING file is included with Sugar Artwork:

https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/blob/master/COPYING

The last change to this file, according to git, was 10 years ago.


> Separately (if possible!) has this been reviewed as valid by legal counsel?
>

I thought that was why we were asking for Tony's involvement.

>
>
> *Thanks for clarifying what you can!*
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Samson Goddy 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>> To: SLOBs 
>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>
>>
>> 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 

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> Walter,  Adam,
>
> Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to
> Tony in the first place?
>
> Can you please clarify.
>

Tony asked for the opinion of the oversight board to several questions. I
posted those questions several days ago and while a discussion ensued, no
one (except me) actually answered the questions. I chose to make a motion
in order to focus on the questions that Tony had posed and to move things
along since there are several members of the community who have said that
this issue is urgent.

>
> Procedure Note: In my opinion such legal related motions should be
> translated to Sugar Labs main users language: Spanish. This takes time but
> needs to be done so that real Sugar users can understand what the Oversight
> is requesting.
>

We certainly can discuss this. We'd need some mechanism to execute it.

regards.

-walter

>
> Regards
>
> 2017-09-15 15:26 GMT-05:00 Martin Dengler :
>
>>
>> > On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 for the motion.
>> >
>> > @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting
>> delay.
>>
>> Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the
>> wiki had been updated already (not by me) so I figured as the wiki had been
>> updated and the outcome was not in doubt it was ok to summarize it in an
>> email. I agree the delay should govern in the future.
>>
>> >   Lionel.
>>
>> Martin
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Laura Vargas]

Walter,  Adam,

Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to Tony
in the first place?

Can you please clarify.

Procedure Note: In my opinion such legal related motions should be
translated to Sugar Labs main users language: Spanish. This takes time but
needs to be done so that real Sugar users can understand what the Oversight
is requesting.

Regards

2017-09-15 15:26 GMT-05:00 Martin Dengler :

>
> > On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské  wrote:
> >
> >
> > +1 for the motion.
> >
> > @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting
> delay.
>
> Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the
> wiki had been updated already (not by me) so I figured as the wiki had been
> updated and the outcome was not in doubt it was ok to summarize it in an
> email. I agree the delay should govern in the future.
>
> >   Lionel.
>
> Martin
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>



-- 
Laura V.
* I 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

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Martin Dengler]

> On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské  wrote:
> 
> 
> +1 for the motion.
> 
> @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay.

Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the wiki had 
been updated already (not by me) so I figured as the wiki had been updated and 
the outcome was not in doubt it was ok to summarize it in an email. I agree the 
delay should govern in the future.

>   Lionel.

Martin
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Lionel Laské]

+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 :

> 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 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>> To: SLOBs 
>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Adam Holt]

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 
wrote:

>
> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
> To: SLOBs 
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>
>
> 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 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Sugar Labs Finance Committee [Was Re: Motion: To appoint Volunteer Laura Vargas as Sugar Labs Financial Manager [was Re: URGENT action needed]]

[Walter Bender]

We appointed a few different FMs over the years, none of whom panned out.
When Adam became our Liaison to the SFC, as I recall, he took over
responsibility for financial reports.

-walter

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Laura Vargas 
wrote:

> Walter,
>
> Any chance you can clarify this?
>
> Are you as Sugar Labs Finance Committee Liaison
> 
> responsible for publishing financial reports to Community?
>
> In the light of a new board been elected it would be a nice gesture for
> you to publish the financial reports to date.
>
> If you consider this is Adam's responsibility and not yours please clarify.
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Candidate for 2017-2019 Sugar Labs Oversight Board

[Sean DALY]

Hello everyone,

After some reflection I have decided to run to be a SLOB again.

If you haven't done so, I invite you to register as a member by September
27th. The election will take place over the first two weeks of October.

Thank you

Sean.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Martin Dengler]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:12:28AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:

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.

[...]

regards.

-walter


I believe the motion has passed.  
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2017-09-15

Martin


Motion 2017-09-15 "Motion regarding xo-computer icon"
=

URL: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2017-09-15
Motion: 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054648.html
Second: 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054710.html

Votes and SLOB members (in order listed on
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board )

+1 Walter Bender [1]
+1 Lionel Laské  [2]
+1 Sameer Verma  [3]
  Adam Holt [4]
+1 Samson Goddy  [5]
+1 Ignacio Rodríguez [6]
-1 Laura Vargas  [7]
== =
+4 Total to-date
+3 Minimum
+5 Maximum

1. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054648.html
2. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054667.html
3. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054713.html
4. Nothing found as of 2017-09-15 19:11 GMT on 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/thread.html
5. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054710.html
6. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054716.html
7. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2017-September/054711.html


pgpHERAueyLBN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Sameer Verma]

Hi Caryl,

Free and open source software projects allow for forking by design as a way
out of major disagreements. However if this disagreement is due to an
intellectual property issue (as it appears to be in the current
discussion), it is best handled by our legal counsel. Most of us are not
qualified enough to offer that judgment. I'm certainly not.

Sameer

On Sep 15, 2017 10:46 AM, "Caryl Bigenho"  wrote:

> The XO icon in modified form is used on Sugarizer. It appears elsewhere on
> other current versions of Sugar. It is a well known icon and, as such,
> carries considerable intrinsic value.
>
>
> If some people want to completely divorce themselves from all the hard
> work of their predecessors and the good will they have built up, perhaps it
> would be better for them to leave Sugar Labs entirely and strike out on
> their own.
>
>
> Caryl
>
>
> --
> *From:* IAEP  on behalf of Sean DALY <
> sdaly...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 9:17 AM
> *To:* Sebastian Silva
> *Cc:* Sugar-dev Devel; Samson Goddy; OLPC para usuarios, docentes,
> voluntarios y administradores; Laura Vargas; Sugar Labs Marketing; Sugar
> Labs Oversights Board; iaep; Ignacio Rodríguez
> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon
>
> So your idea is: no trademarks at all? Do you think Sugar Labs should give
> up its trademark?
>
> Is your goal to undermine Sugar Labs and/or OLPC?
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sebastian Silva <
> sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>
>> On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
>> > The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
>> > long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
>> > license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
>> > a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
>> > underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
>> > change.
>> You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
>> downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
>> competitors?
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Caryl Bigenho]

The XO icon in modified form is used on Sugarizer. It appears elsewhere on 
other current versions of Sugar. It is a well known icon and, as such, carries 
considerable intrinsic value.


If some people want to completely divorce themselves from all the hard work of 
their predecessors and the good will they have built up, perhaps it would be 
better for them to leave Sugar Labs entirely and strike out on their own.


Caryl



From: IAEP  on behalf of Sean DALY 

Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 9:17 AM
To: Sebastian Silva
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel; Samson Goddy; OLPC para usuarios, docentes, voluntarios y 
administradores; Laura Vargas; Sugar Labs Marketing; Sugar Labs Oversights 
Board; iaep; Ignacio Rodríguez
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

So your idea is: no trademarks at all? Do you think Sugar Labs should give up 
its trademark?

Is your goal to undermine Sugar Labs and/or OLPC?

Sean


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sebastian Silva 
> wrote:
On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
> The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
> long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
> license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
> a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
> underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
> change.
You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
competitors?

Sebastian

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Candidacy for Sugarlabs Oversight Board 2017-2019.

[Sameer Verma]

Greetings!

I have announced my candidacy for a position on the Sugarlabs
Oversight Board (SLOB) for 2017-19

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2017-2019-candidates#Sameer_Verma

You have until 27 September 2017 to register as a member in order to
vote in the election. Check to see if you are on the list.
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:SL_Member_List_verified_2017.ods

If you would like to register to become a member, those instructions
are at: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members

best,
Sameer
-- 
Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Professor, Information Systems
San Francisco State University
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Sean DALY]

So your idea is: no trademarks at all? Do you think Sugar Labs should give
up its trademark?

Is your goal to undermine Sugar Labs and/or OLPC?

Sean


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sebastian Silva  wrote:

> On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
> > The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
> > long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
> > license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
> > a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
> > underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
> > change.
> You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
> downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
> competitors?
>
> Sebastian
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Sebastian Silva]

On 15/09/17 10:59, Sean DALY wrote:
> The copyrights are licensed under the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a
> long history of use in Sugar with OLPC's cooperation - a formal
> license may be superfluous (a determination which can only be made by
> a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So this is just an
> underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and impose a
> change.
You are not reading carefully. Perhaps Sugar Labs has permission. Do
downstream distributors? Do downstream service providers? Do OLPC
competitors?

Sebastian
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Sean DALY]

>> About the icon-debug, the goal is for the main Sugar branch to be
"libre" of Trademarks> global and future users should be
>>able to modify and redistribute Sugar as a 100% libre software and that
is what we all want, don;t you?

This is just silly. It's not because Sugar artwork is trademarked or
copyrighted that it can't be distributed. The copyrights are licensed under
the GPL, and OLPC's trademark has a long history of use in Sugar with
OLPC's cooperation - a formal license may be superfluous (a determination
which can only be made by a lawyer). The artwork file itself is GPL'd. So
this is just an underhanded way to bypass the community (and the SLOBs) and
impose a change. Just awful.

Sean.


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Laura Vargas 
wrote:

>
>
> 2017-09-15 10:24 GMT-05:00 Ignacio Rodríguez :
>
>> +1 from me.
>> I know people tend to relate Sugar to OLPC, in fact I still do sometimes
>> (it's easier to explain someone that "Sugar" is the thing that runs in the
>> XO's).
>>
>> But the icon should stay as it was.
>> If you want to change the icon for your deployments just change it
>> (wasn't that what you guys were trying to say?)
>>
>
> Ignacio,
>
> First am glad you have decide to stay in the oversight board. Your
> resignation was not clear.
>
> I hope this means you are going dedicate time to the oversight tasks. :D
>
>
> About the icon-debug, the goal is for the main Sugar branch to be "libre"
> of Trademarks> global and future users should be able to modify and
> redistribute Sugar as a 100% libre software and that is what we all want,
> don;t you?
>
>
>
>
>> Thx
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM Sameer Verma  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Sameer
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:
>>>


 On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" 
 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 
 Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
 Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
 To: SLOBs 
 Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 


 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, 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Laura Vargas]

2017-09-15 10:24 GMT-05:00 Ignacio Rodríguez :

> +1 from me.
> I know people tend to relate Sugar to OLPC, in fact I still do sometimes
> (it's easier to explain someone that "Sugar" is the thing that runs in the
> XO's).
>
> But the icon should stay as it was.
> If you want to change the icon for your deployments just change it (wasn't
> that what you guys were trying to say?)
>

Ignacio,

First am glad you have decide to stay in the oversight board. Your
resignation was not clear.

I hope this means you are going dedicate time to the oversight tasks. :D


About the icon-debug, the goal is for the main Sugar branch to be "libre"
of Trademarks> global and future users should be able to modify and
redistribute Sugar as a 100% libre software and that is what we all want,
don;t you?




> Thx
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM Sameer Verma  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Sameer
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" 
>>> 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 
>>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>>> To: SLOBs 
>>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 

Re: [IAEP] Membership and Elections Committee - Elections 2017-2019 Update

[Samson Goddy]

Thanks a lot!

On Sep 15, 2017 4:25 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:

>
> Done.
>
>
> 2017-09-14 7:33 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :
>
>> Yes, add him too. Thanks
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2017 1:29 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-09-13 15:00 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :
>>>


 On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Laura Vargas 
 wrote:

>
>
> 2017-09-13 13:35 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :
>
>> "Looking on the archives seems Hrishi requested membership on
>> December 18, 2017. I was not in the Membership Committee at the time" .
>>
>>
>> The above date is 3 months in the future! 
>>
>
> Ups!  I meant December 18, 2016.
>
> Thank you Caryl for the correction.
>
> Sebastian had announce his Membership and Election's Committee on December
> 2, 2016
>  but
> he looked it up and found Hirish's first application made on December
> 18, 2016.
>
> Samson can you please check in your records?
>
 Funny enough, I didn't see the email. Quite strange.

>
>
> Any reason why you did not add Hirish back on December 2016?
>
 Not really, i didn't see the request.

 But can you add him now?, that would be great.

>>>
>>>
>>> OK. Remember you also have privileges to add member's to the list.
>>>
>>> Also remember point 01 from the meeting was also Pericherla Seetarama
>>> Raju membership.
>>>
>>> Shall I also add Pericherla?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>

> Regards
>
> Laura
>
> *From:* IAEP  on behalf of Samson
>> Goddy 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:49:25 AM
>> *To:* Laura Vargas
>> *Cc:* Frederick Grose; sugar labs; pericherla seetaramaraju; SLOBs;
>> Dave Crossland; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; Ibiam Chihurumnaya;
>> iaep
>> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Membership and Elections Committee - Elections
>> 2017-2019 Update
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2017 1:15 PM, "Laura Vargas" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-09-13 0:33 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2017 2:01 AM, "Laura Vargas" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2017 4:51 PM, "Laura Vargas" 
 wrote:


 Hello Committee and Community members,


 *Topics for discussion*

 01 Ignacio,

 Your resignation
 to
 the board has a direct impact to current elections as *it would
 open a fifth seat for the Sugar Labs Oversight Board 2017-2019 period. 
  As
 long as you don't make a formal declination of your board seat, the
 Membership and Elections Committee will not consider the seat 
 available for
 the 2017-2019 elections.*



>>> Samson,
>>>
>>> Can you please share your opinion in this issue as well?
>>>
>>> Sorry for replying late, i think Ignacio have not originally
>>> declared himself out yet. So the seat isn't available until the next
>>> election.
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for your imput. Given the relevance for current elections, l
>> think we should doable-check with the Boar to be sure.
>>
>>
>>> Secondly laura, as you requested Hrishi actually applied for
>>> membership, he has not gotten any reply or added today the list. I am 
>>> still
>>> in Abuja for my visa (Which i got) so i am away from my computer.
>>>
>>>
>> Looking on the archives seems Hrishi requested membership on December
>> 18, 2017. I was not in the Membership Committee at the time,
>>
>> Can you confirm why you didn't approve the request at the time?
>>
>> I did see his mail last week.
>>
>> But he mailed the membership applying for membership September 11th.
>>
>> Hrishi Patel
>> IRC name : hrishi
>> GitHub : hrishi1999
>>
>> I've been contributing to SL since 2014. I've been part of GCI
>> 2014,15,16. I was a mentor for 3 projects in GSoC 2017 and has helped for
>> docs and other projects.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please look into it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laura V.
>>> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>>
>>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>>> ~ L. Victoria
>>>
>>> Happy Learning!
>>> #LearningByDoing
>>> #Projects4good
>>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> *I 

Re: [IAEP] Membership and Elections Committee - Elections 2017-2019 Update

[Laura Vargas]

Done.


2017-09-14 7:33 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :

> Yes, add him too. Thanks
>
> On Sep 14, 2017 1:29 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-09-13 15:00 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Laura Vargas 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 2017-09-13 13:35 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :

> "Looking on the archives seems Hrishi requested membership on
> December 18, 2017. I was not in the Membership Committee at the time" .
>
>
> The above date is 3 months in the future! 
>

 Ups!  I meant December 18, 2016.

 Thank you Caryl for the correction.

 Sebastian had announce his Membership and Election's Committee on December
 2, 2016
  but
 he looked it up and found Hirish's first application made on December
 18, 2016.

 Samson can you please check in your records?

>>> Funny enough, I didn't see the email. Quite strange.
>>>


 Any reason why you did not add Hirish back on December 2016?

>>> Not really, i didn't see the request.
>>>
>>> But can you add him now?, that would be great.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK. Remember you also have privileges to add member's to the list.
>>
>> Also remember point 01 from the meeting was also Pericherla Seetarama
>> Raju membership.
>>
>> Shall I also add Pericherla?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>>
 Regards

 Laura

 *From:* IAEP  on behalf of Samson
> Goddy 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:49:25 AM
> *To:* Laura Vargas
> *Cc:* Frederick Grose; sugar labs; pericherla seetaramaraju; SLOBs;
> Dave Crossland; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; Ibiam Chihurumnaya;
> iaep
> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Membership and Elections Committee - Elections
> 2017-2019 Update
>
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2017 1:15 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>
>
>
> 2017-09-13 0:33 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2017 2:01 AM, "Laura Vargas" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2017 4:51 PM, "Laura Vargas" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Committee and Community members,
>>>
>>>
>>> *Topics for discussion*
>>>
>>> 01 Ignacio,
>>>
>>> Your resignation
>>> to
>>> the board has a direct impact to current elections as *it would
>>> open a fifth seat for the Sugar Labs Oversight Board 2017-2019 period.  
>>> As
>>> long as you don't make a formal declination of your board seat, the
>>> Membership and Elections Committee will not consider the seat available 
>>> for
>>> the 2017-2019 elections.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Samson,
>>
>> Can you please share your opinion in this issue as well?
>>
>> Sorry for replying late, i think Ignacio have not originally declared
>> himself out yet. So the seat isn't available until the next election.
>>
>>
> Thanks for your imput. Given the relevance for current elections, l
> think we should doable-check with the Boar to be sure.
>
>
>> Secondly laura, as you requested Hrishi actually applied for
>> membership, he has not gotten any reply or added today the list. I am 
>> still
>> in Abuja for my visa (Which i got) so i am away from my computer.
>>
>>
> Looking on the archives seems Hrishi requested membership on December
> 18, 2017. I was not in the Membership Committee at the time,
>
> Can you confirm why you didn't approve the request at the time?
>
> I did see his mail last week.
>
> But he mailed the membership applying for membership September 11th.
>
> Hrishi Patel
> IRC name : hrishi
> GitHub : hrishi1999
>
> I've been contributing to SL since 2014. I've been part of GCI
> 2014,15,16. I was a mentor for 3 projects in GSoC 2017 and has helped for
> docs and other projects.
>
>
>
> Please look into it.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>
>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
>> ~ L. Victoria
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>> #LearningByDoing
>> #Projects4good
>> #IDesignATSugarLabs
>> #WeCanDoBetter
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
> ~ L. Victoria
>
> Happy Learning!
> #LearningByDoing
> #Projects4good
> #IDesignATSugarLabs
> #WeCanDoBetter
>
>
>


 --
 Laura V.
 * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Ignacio Rodríguez]

+1 from me.
I know people tend to relate Sugar to OLPC, in fact I still do sometimes
(it's easier to explain someone that "Sugar" is the thing that runs in the
XO's).

But the icon should stay as it was.
If you want to change the icon for your deployments just change it (wasn't
that what you guys were trying to say?)

Thx


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM Sameer Verma  wrote:

> +1
>
> Sameer
>
> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>> To: SLOBs 
>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>>
>>
>> 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 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Sameer Verma]

+1

Sameer

On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
> To: SLOBs 
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>
>
> 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.

[IAEP] Design Team Meeting Call Date to be defined

[Laura Vargas]

Hello all.

In previous days it has been suggested the new Sugar main icon to be
upgraded with Community's feedback.

I support the idea and I have propose to prepare a
*2017 Sugar Design Marathon.*
Am already working on the proposal for dynamics and tasks to be done (as
the new "libre" icon translates into new "libre" learning and communication
materials.

It was long time needed to refresh our user interface and hopefully this
clear brand disassociation will inspire more computer vendors to use Sugar.

cc Manuel Quiñones and Gary Martin, Design Team

Please anyone interested in participating of this process state your
availability to coordinate the meeting for next week.


Regards
-- 
Laura V.
* I 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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Laura Vargas]

-1

Community haven't reach consensus to get the old icon (trademark of OLPC)
back.


2017-09-15 9:15 GMT-05:00 Samson Goddy :

>
>
> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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.
>
>
That answer does not justify the use.


> (Q2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what
> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen?  E.g.,
>
>
I propose it needs to say:

" In case SLOBs want to get it back..."

- 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 
> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
> To: SLOBs 
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 
>
>
> 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 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Samson Goddy]

On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender"  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 
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
To: SLOBs 
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 


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

-- 

[IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

[Walter Bender]

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.

regards.

-walter

-- Forwarded message --
From: Walter Bender 
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
To: SLOBs 
Cc: Sugar-dev Devel 


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




-- 
Walter Bender