Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
At this point I would like to mention some last words and then stop sending e-mails to this thread. I am sorry to say that I could not tell you and others what I really wanted to say. Maybe, it was due to a language barrier on my side. Ich kann auch in Deutsch schreiben, falls es so leichter für alle Beteiligten und Interessierten ist. So, a last time once again. In general, if a registered trademark is very well known by the public, or said in other words, if it is part of the colloquial language/common speech, then such a trademark can be deleted from a trademark registry, which surely results in an update of the WIPO ROMARIN database. The registered trademark 'LEGO' is such a registered trademark, which has become a term/word of many common speeches worldwide, definitely. For example, a very common speech act is 'Let's play lego', like the speech act 'Let's google it'. In this respect I wrote before, that I do not think that Lego is in control over its registered trademark 'LEGO' anymore, because I think that the term/word 'lego' is part of many common speeches worldwide and hence should be deleted from the related trademark registries respectively databases due to the legal rule that a term/word that belongs to a common speech is not qualified to be protected by the public as a registered trademark (anymore). I did not meant that the term/word 'lego' is not a registered trademark of Lego. I meant that Lego might loose it potentially due to the laws. If the company Lego thinks that a person, group or corporation has infringed its trademark 'LEGO', wants to vigorously defend this infringement, and sues this person, group, or corporation, then Lego risks that the opposite party questions the legality of Lego's trademark registration and in this way start a legal process that in the end deletes the registered trademark 'LEGO' from the registry. In fact, here begins highly complex legal stuff even for the company Lego and it is already up to Lego how far it goes with its gambling in this specific case of the term/word 'lego' that is actually registered as the trademark 'LEGO'. By the way: A similar case at the courts was e.g. Lindows vs. Windows, that ended with a big cheque for the side of Lindows (see [2]). This is how it works at least in Europe, and in this respect the statements on the referenced webpage of Lego (see [1]) have to be seen as well. In fact, some rules are simply said not as valid as Lego claims as part of its gambling. Said this, the WIPO ROMARIN database does not contradict me regarding the registered trademark 'LEGO'. By the way, the term/word 'sugar' is also part of common speech. Have fun Christian Stroetmann [1] aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/legal-notice/fair-play http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/legal-notice/fair-play [2] Wikipedia, Linspire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindows WIPO's Romarin database contradicts you regarding the LEGO mark. LEGO vigorously defend infringement of their marks (http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/legal-notice/fair-play). Sean On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com mailto:stroetm...@ontolab.com wrote: On Thu, 27.02.2014 01 tel:27.02.2014%2001:13, Bastien wrote: Christian Stroetmannstroetm...@ontolab.com mailto:stroetm...@ontolab.com writes: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). A trademark is not just about adding (TM) after a bunch of other trademarks. I doubt you officially registered One Tablet Per Child. I mean... One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM)... a new trademark with LEGO within it, seriously? You are right and wrong. Indeed, the related laws are complex and it needs some time and often support by an attorney for common people to understand them a little. So please, ask a attorney, and keep in mind that the terms are used commercially and are copyrighted as well. That is also the reason, why a said in an e-mail before, that the issue with the trademark is irrelevant here. The point with LEGO in a new trademark is serious. For example, if a registered trademark belongs to a common language, which is the case if the trademark is known very well by the public, like for example Lego, Windows, Google, Android, and so on, then the trademark laws say, that it can be deleted from the trademark register. Said this, I already doubt in this specific case that the company LEGO has still control over the trademark LEGO. Nevertheless, it was meant as a place holder and an idea contributer, if the company LEGO would be interested in such a One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM) device on the one hand and on the other hand a mark that my company publicated the concept
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Samuel: Im sorry to say, but I wished nothing in this respect, like discussing legal issues with somebody or reaching an agreement with Sugar Labs, because the Sugar learning software is licensed under the GPL. I only sent an e-mail to this mailing list, because Daniel Narvaez started this thread mentioning a combination of Sugar and Boot to Gecko (B2G; officially called Firefox OS; Gecko is the web browser rendering engine of Firefox) of the Mozilla foundation, which exactly is Sugarfox, and because I think that if somebody starts a private, public or commercial project, product or service related with Sugar, then it would be nice if she/he informs the related groups of Sugar on their mailing lists. In relation with the legal issues, it was Lionel at first and then others, who said something about trademarks, while I said directly in my second e-mail that it is irrelevant here. But despite of this, I think that legal issues are important to know as well for developers volunteering in open source software projects that go beyond questions related with open source software licenses. So I simply wanted to be polite and have answered the questions. Have fun Christian Stroetmann Christian: This is an email mailing list primarily made of volunteers. To the best of my knowledge no one involved with this email thread so far (including me) is authorized to act on their own on behalf of Sugar Labs or OLPC. Likewise, no individual you are speaking with likely can legally bind either Sugar Labs or OLPC to an agreement. If you wish to discussion trademarks or the rights to features, I recommend contacting either of their legal counsels or registered agents directly. I would further recommend that everyone hold off on saying anything else on this email thread. This is something for the lawyers to handle, and none of us are legal counsel. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com mailto:stroetm...@ontolab.com wrote: Hello Paul You wrote: james wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:55:36AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). You are contracted by OLPC? So, please could you take a look and tell me when the OLPC announced their tablet computer. No, I do not have access to those records. Relying only on public record, http://blog.laptop.org/ the multi-child XO Tablet manufactured by Vivitar and OLPC was announced as available for retail sale at Walmart.com on July 16 2013. There was an announcement before that on January 9 2013 associated with CES. I don't see how this is relevant to sugar-devel@ mailing list. [1] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 http://www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 from the pictures at that link, it seems to be related to the XO-3, which, while under developmentd for a very long time, was never released, nor produced in more than prototype quantities. and, it was a very different beast than the XO Tablet produced by vivitar. (i know that james knows this -- i'm just clarifying for others.) paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org mailto:p...@laptop.org Thank you for your clarification. Indeed, the One Tablet Per Child project was started by intelliTablet, because the XO-3 never came to market. But form my point of view the chronology has some more facts to list: 1. The OLPC developed the concept and a design study of the XO-2 in 2008. 2. I showed a picture of the XO-1Beta of the year 2005 on one of my websites [1]. Because I thought the XO-1 is already a convertible laptop respectively tablet laptop (see also [2]) that features a touchscreen, due to the reason that I confused touch pad with touchscreen, I described the XO-1 as Tablet Computer Convertible One Laptop per Child (OLPC) XO-1 (move the mouse on the image to see the description). 3. The OLPC developed the concept and prototypes of the XO-3 and presented it on the CES in January 2012 for example. 4. Because the OLPC presented the XO-2 and the XO-3, but no direct successor of the XO-1, my business division intelliTablet came back to my concept of the convertible tablet computer variant of the XO-1 (see again point 2.) and presented it on the 17th of July 2012 and 19th of July 2012 ([3] and [4]). The device should be an
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com wrote: In this respect I wrote before, that I do not think that Lego is in control over its registered trademark 'LEGO' anymore, This has nothing to do with Sugar, nor OLPC. Perhaps a mailing list about trademarks is more appropriate (hint: you might find you are wrong). Many (most?) active members on this list have contributed a huge amount of their time over years to OLPC and Sugar, with a mix of volunteer and paid-for work. And essentially from the heart. If a person of subgroup is taking trademarks over something this group has worked on with passion is seen as a form of profiteering on the back of our devoted work. Unless you are going to hand over the trademarks to the SugarLabs non-profit, it just does not make you many friends around here. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Fri, 28.02.2014 19:41, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com wrote: In this respect I wrote before, that I do not think that Lego is in control over its registered trademark 'LEGO' anymore, This has nothing to do with Sugar, nor OLPC. Perhaps a mailing list about trademarks is more appropriate (hint: you might find you are wrong). Please, read the e-mails correctly, specifically the e-mail I sent to Samuel Greenfield today. Many (most?) active members on this list have contributed a huge amount of their time over years to OLPC and Sugar, with a mix of volunteer and paid-for work. And essentially from the heart. If a person of subgroup is taking trademarks over something this group has worked on with passion is seen as a form of profiteering on the back of our devoted work. Unless you are going to hand over the trademarks to the SugarLabs non-profit, it just does not make you many friends around here. m The sound makes the music. MfG With friendly greetings Christian Stroetmann ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Thu, 27.02.2014 01:13, Bastien wrote: Christian Stroetmannstroetm...@ontolab.com writes: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). A trademark is not just about adding (TM) after a bunch of other trademarks. I doubt you officially registered One Tablet Per Child. I mean... One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM)... a new trademark with LEGO within it, seriously? You are right and wrong. Indeed, the related laws are complex and it needs some time and often support by an attorney for common people to understand them a little. So please, ask a attorney, and keep in mind that the terms are used commercially and are copyrighted as well. That is also the reason, why a said in an e-mail before, that the issue with the trademark is irrelevant here. The point with LEGO in a new trademark is serious. For example, if a registered trademark belongs to a common language, which is the case if the trademark is known very well by the public, like for example Lego, Windows, Google, Android, and so on, then the trademark laws say, that it can be deleted from the trademark register. Said this, I already doubt in this specific case that the company LEGO has still control over the trademark LEGO. Nevertheless, it was meant as a place holder and an idea contributer, if the company LEGO would be interested in such a One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM) device on the one hand and on the other hand a mark that my company publicated the concept with this title. There are more points to say, but again ask an attorney, look at other laws, and so on, and respect my company's trademarks. Regards Christian Stroetmann ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Thu, 27.02.2014 00:57, James Cameron wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:40:34AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. No, it is called XO-4 Touch, and is not a tablet, but a laptop. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-4_Touch Are you the OLPC headquarter? I am contracted by them and work closely with them, and have for many years. I'm sorry to say, but now I'm totally confused: Perhaps this is a language barrier. Can you access a translator? On Thu, 27.02.2014 00:01, James Cameron wrote to laptop.org: An Android 4.3.1 (Jelly Bean) build for the XO-4 laptop. OLPC is preparing an Android, Sugar and Gnome dual-boot system for the XO-4. No, it is just a syntactical problem and hence no translator is needed at all. Look above: You said that the XO-4 is called XO-4 Touch by OLPC, but then you wrote in another e-mail on the mailing-list of the OLPC about an XO-4. I'm confused, because after your kind explanations I do know now that there is a device called XO-4 Touch by OLPC, but not an XO-4. Could it be that the OLPC simply call the XO-4 Touch XO-4? ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
2014-02-27 9:29 GMT+01:00 Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com: Nevertheless, it was meant as a place holder and an idea contributer, if the company LEGO would be interested in such a One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM) device on the one hand and on the other hand a mark that my company publicated the concept with this title. There are more points to say, but again ask an attorney, look at other laws, and so on, and respect my company's trademarks. Funny. So I suggest that you register a new trademark in your list: You've got the idea, We've got the trademark I don't think I'm wrong if I say that it's basically what your job is. Lionel. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Hi Lionel 2014-02-27 9:29 GMT+01:00 Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com mailto:stroetm...@ontolab.com: Nevertheless, it was meant as a place holder and an idea contributer, if the company LEGO would be interested in such a One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM) device on the one hand and on the other hand a mark that my company publicated the concept with this title. There are more points to say, but again ask an attorney, look at other laws, and so on, and respect my company's trademarks. Funny. So I suggest that you register a new trademark in your list: You've got the idea, We've got the trademark I don't think I'm wrong if I say that it's basically what your job is. Lionel. You are not quite right with your statements. In fact, if we create an idea, a concept, a technique, a technology, or something else, then we directly create the marketing story and the label respectively trademark as well as part of a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). This is common practice in many fields, like design, engineering, and so on. Also, my job is basically not only these tasks listed above, because someone and also we have to research and develop, invent, document, design, draw, publicate, keep an eye on the laws, take action against fraudsters, who are living from the ideas of others, and many other tasks to do. Said this, the correct suggestion would have been: We've got the idea. We've got the trademark too. Regards Christian Stroetmann ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
All this is completely off-topic on this list and I'm personally done with the good laugh I had, so I suggest we move to something else. Thanks, -- Bastien ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Hello Paul You wrote: james wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:55:36AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). You are contracted by OLPC? So, please could you take a look and tell me when the OLPC announced their tablet computer. No, I do not have access to those records. Relying only on public record, http://blog.laptop.org/ the multi-child XO Tablet manufactured by Vivitar and OLPC was announced as available for retail sale at Walmart.com on July 16 2013. There was an announcement before that on January 9 2013 associated with CES. I don't see how this is relevant to sugar-devel@ mailing list. [1] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 from the pictures at that link, it seems to be related to the XO-3, which, while under developmentd for a very long time, was never released, nor produced in more than prototype quantities. and, it was a very different beast than the XO Tablet produced by vivitar. (i know that james knows this -- i'm just clarifying for others.) paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org Thank you for your clarification. Indeed, the One Tablet Per Child project was started by intelliTablet, because the XO-3 never came to market. But form my point of view the chronology has some more facts to list: 1. The OLPC developed the concept and a design study of the XO-2 in 2008. 2. I showed a picture of the XO-1Beta of the year 2005 on one of my websites [1]. Because I thought the XO-1 is already a convertible laptop respectively tablet laptop (see also [2]) that features a touchscreen, due to the reason that I confused touch pad with touchscreen, I described the XO-1 as Tablet Computer Convertible One Laptop per Child (OLPC) XO-1 (move the mouse on the image to see the description). 3. The OLPC developed the concept and prototypes of the XO-3 and presented it on the CES in January 2012 for example. 4. Because the OLPC presented the XO-2 and the XO-3, but no direct successor of the XO-1, my business division intelliTablet came back to my concept of the convertible tablet computer variant of the XO-1 (see again point 2.) and presented it on the 17th of July 2012 and 19th of July 2012 ([3] and [4]). The device should be an integration of the XO-1 and the XO-3, or said in other words, an XO-1 with a (multi-)touchscreen. 5. 8 days later the OLPC presented the XO-4 Touch in a press release. 6. Wikipedia describes the XO-4 in the following way [5]: The XO 4 is a refresh of the XO 1 to 1.75 with a later ARM CPU and an optional touch screen. 7. Due to these points, I claimed in my first e-mail to this thread that The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. Maybe, some details are not correct. Have fun Christian Stroetmann [1] Original vs. Inspirationwww.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2010/january.htm#07.January.2010 [2] Wikipedia Laptop, subsection Convertible laptop en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convertible_laptop#Convertible_laptop [3] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 [4] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #2 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#19.July.2012 [5] Wikipedia OLPC XO-1, XO 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XO_laptop ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Christian: This is an email mailing list primarily made of volunteers. To the best of my knowledge no one involved with this email thread so far (including me) is authorized to act on their own on behalf of Sugar Labs or OLPC. Likewise, no individual you are speaking with likely can legally bind either Sugar Labs or OLPC to an agreement. If you wish to discussion trademarks or the rights to features, I recommend contacting either of their legal counsels or registered agents directly. I would further recommend that everyone hold off on saying anything else on this email thread. This is something for the lawyers to handle, and none of us are legal counsel. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com wrote: Hello Paul You wrote: james wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:55:36AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). You are contracted by OLPC? So, please could you take a look and tell me when the OLPC announced their tablet computer. No, I do not have access to those records. Relying only on public record, http://blog.laptop.org/ the multi-child XO Tablet manufactured by Vivitar and OLPC was announced as available for retail sale at Walmart.com on July 16 2013. There was an announcement before that on January 9 2013 associated with CES. I don't see how this is relevant to sugar-devel@ mailing list. [1] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 from the pictures at that link, it seems to be related to the XO-3, which, while under developmentd for a very long time, was never released, nor produced in more than prototype quantities. and, it was a very different beast than the XO Tablet produced by vivitar. (i know that james knows this -- i'm just clarifying for others.) paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org Thank you for your clarification. Indeed, the One Tablet Per Child project was started by intelliTablet, because the XO-3 never came to market. But form my point of view the chronology has some more facts to list: 1. The OLPC developed the concept and a design study of the XO-2 in 2008. 2. I showed a picture of the XO-1Beta of the year 2005 on one of my websites [1]. Because I thought the XO-1 is already a convertible laptop respectively tablet laptop (see also [2]) that features a touchscreen, due to the reason that I confused touch pad with touchscreen, I described the XO-1 as Tablet Computer Convertible One Laptop per Child (OLPC) XO-1 (move the mouse on the image to see the description). 3. The OLPC developed the concept and prototypes of the XO-3 and presented it on the CES in January 2012 for example. 4. Because the OLPC presented the XO-2 and the XO-3, but no direct successor of the XO-1, my business division intelliTablet came back to my concept of the convertible tablet computer variant of the XO-1 (see again point 2.) and presented it on the 17th of July 2012 and 19th of July 2012 ([3] and [4]). The device should be an integration of the XO-1 and the XO-3, or said in other words, an XO-1 with a (multi-)touchscreen. 5. 8 days later the OLPC presented the XO-4 Touch in a press release. 6. Wikipedia describes the XO-4 in the following way [5]: The XO 4 is a refresh of the XO 1 to 1.75 with a later ARM CPU and an optional touch screen. 7. Due to these points, I claimed in my first e-mail to this thread that The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. Maybe, some details are not correct. Have fun Christian Stroetmann [1] Original vs. Inspirationwww.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2010/january.htm# 07.January.2010 [2] Wikipedia Laptop, subsection Convertible laptop en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Convertible_laptop#Convertible_laptop [3] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/ 2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 [4] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #2 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/ 2012/july.htm#19.July.2012 [5] Wikipedia OLPC XO-1, XO 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XO_laptop ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
WIPO's Romarin database contradicts you regarding the LEGO mark. LEGO vigorously defend infringement of their marks ( http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/legal-notice/fair-play). Sean On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com wrote: On Thu, 27.02.2014 01:13, Bastien wrote: Christian Stroetmannstroetm...@ontolab.com writes: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). A trademark is not just about adding (TM) after a bunch of other trademarks. I doubt you officially registered One Tablet Per Child. I mean... One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM)... a new trademark with LEGO within it, seriously? You are right and wrong. Indeed, the related laws are complex and it needs some time and often support by an attorney for common people to understand them a little. So please, ask a attorney, and keep in mind that the terms are used commercially and are copyrighted as well. That is also the reason, why a said in an e-mail before, that the issue with the trademark is irrelevant here. The point with LEGO in a new trademark is serious. For example, if a registered trademark belongs to a common language, which is the case if the trademark is known very well by the public, like for example Lego, Windows, Google, Android, and so on, then the trademark laws say, that it can be deleted from the trademark register. Said this, I already doubt in this specific case that the company LEGO has still control over the trademark LEGO. Nevertheless, it was meant as a place holder and an idea contributer, if the company LEGO would be interested in such a One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM) device on the one hand and on the other hand a mark that my company publicated the concept with this title. There are more points to say, but again ask an attorney, look at other laws, and so on, and respect my company's trademarks. Regards Christian Stroetmann ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Aloha I would like to inform you all about the following points: 1. We have registered our project Sugarfox (TM), publicated on the 9th of October 2013 ([1]), at Mozilla Firefox OS and its related marketplace with the creation of a partner account for our company with the following short description: Sugarfox brings the learning environment Sugar in its web version based on HTML and JS together with the Firefox OS. 2. To port Boot to Gecko (B2G) respectively Firefox OS on X86 was already started around the year 2012 by some Mozilla supporters (actually looking for the old informations led to [2]). 3. Because you are developing Sugar Web Activities on the web browser (rendering) engine WebKit, it might be better to take our other proposed project Boot to WebKit (B2W; [3]) for a fully HTML, CSS and JavaScript based Sugar, though this should not be needed at all due to the interoperability of the applied web technologies. Personally and honestly, I am not very interested in programming for Sugarfox, because of another related project that is the updated respectively extended version of B2W now called Boot to WebCore, which should get our C++Core based on the Cling C/C++ interpreter besides the still optionally available JavaScriptCore. For sure, this could become another option for the Sugar learning environment. Nevertheless, you can ask me everything related with software technology, software architecture and so on. Have fun Christian Stroetmann [1] www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2013/october.htm#09.October.2013 [2] Hacking Gaia developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Platform/Gaia/Hacking [3] Boot to WebKit and Boot to WebCore www.ontonics.com/innovation/pipeline.htm#boottowebkit This is a very interesting development as a possible base platform for a future fully html based Sugar. B2G always felt like the perfect platform for it, if not because it wouldn't (fully) work on a normal Linux distro. -- Forwarded message -- From: *Hugh Tay* h...@hadronization.com mailto:h...@hadronization.com Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2014 Subject: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86 To: dev-...@lists.mozilla.org mailto:dev-...@lists.mozilla.org Hello everyone, I would like to initiate a new open-source community project to port FireFox OS to the Intel/AMD x86-64 platform. I'm thinking along the lines of the port for RasPi that Oleg Romashin developed - executing Gecko on top of a vanilla Linux kernel with only the essential drivers/libraries loaded. Supposedly this method would let us run FF-OS on an x86 PC like other Linux distros; e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora; just that its UI would be Gecko instead of KDE or Gnome. This way we should also be able to reduce our dependence on Android as the backbone of FireFox OS. Perhaps further down the line we could also take advantage of UEFI booting and B2G in 10 seconds? Would anyone be interested in contributing to this effort? Looking forward to an exciting time ahead! Hugh ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-...@lists.mozilla.org javascript:; https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Am 26.02.2014 16:30, schrieb Christian Stroetmann: Aloha I would like to inform you all about the following points: 1. We have registered our project Sugarfox (TM), publicated on the 9th of October 2013 ([1]), at Mozilla Firefox OS and its related marketplace with the creation of a partner account for our company with the following short description: Sugarfox brings the learning environment Sugar in its web version based on HTML and JS together with the Firefox OS. 2. To port Boot to Gecko (B2G) respectively Firefox OS on X86 was already started around the year 2012 by some Mozilla supporters (actually looking for the old informations led to [2]). 3. Because you are developing Sugar Web Activities on the web browser (rendering) engine WebKit, it might be better to take our other proposed project Boot to WebKit (B2W; [3]) for a fully HTML, CSS and JavaScript based Sugar, though this should not be needed at all due to the interoperability of the applied web technologies. Personally and honestly, I am not very interested in programming for Sugarfox, because of another related project that is the updated respectively extended version of B2W now called Boot to WebCore, which should get our C++Core based on the Cling C/C++ interpreter besides the still optionally available JavaScriptCore. For sure, this could become another option for the Sugar learning environment. Nevertheless, you can ask me everything related with software technology, software architecture and so on. Have fun Christian Stroetmann [1] www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2013/october.htm#09.October.2013 [2] Hacking Gaia developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Platform/Gaia/Hacking [3] Boot to WebKit and Boot to WebCore www.ontonics.com/innovation/pipeline.htm#boottowebkit This is a very interesting development as a possible base platform for a future fully html based Sugar. B2G always felt like the perfect platform for it, if not because it wouldn't (fully) work on a normal Linux distro. -- Forwarded message -- From: *Hugh Tay* h...@hadronization.com mailto:h...@hadronization.com Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2014 Subject: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86 To: dev-...@lists.mozilla.org mailto:dev-...@lists.mozilla.org Hello everyone, I would like to initiate a new open-source community project to port FireFox OS to the Intel/AMD x86-64 platform. I'm thinking along the lines of the port for RasPi that Oleg Romashin developed - executing Gecko on top of a vanilla Linux kernel with only the essential drivers/libraries loaded. Supposedly this method would let us run FF-OS on an x86 PC like other Linux distros; e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora; just that its UI would be Gecko instead of KDE or Gnome. This way we should also be able to reduce our dependence on Android as the backbone of FireFox OS. Perhaps further down the line we could also take advantage of UEFI booting and B2G in 10 seconds? Would anyone be interested in contributing to this effort? Looking forward to an exciting time ahead! Hugh ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-...@lists.mozilla.org javascript:; https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
A little correction: Boot to Web (B2W) Boot to WebKit (B2WK) Sorry for the confusion. Best regards Christian Stroetmann Aloha I would like to inform you all about the following points: 1. We have registered our project Sugarfox (TM), publicated on the 9th of October 2013 ([1]), at Mozilla Firefox OS and its related marketplace with the creation of a partner account for our company with the following short description: Sugarfox brings the learning environment Sugar in its web version based on HTML and JS together with the Firefox OS. 2. To port Boot to Gecko (B2G) respectively Firefox OS on X86 was already started around the year 2012 by some Mozilla supporters (actually looking for the old informations led to [2]). 3. Because you are developing Sugar Web Activities on the web browser (rendering) engine WebKit, it might be better to take our other proposed project Boot to WebKit (B2W; [3]) for a fully HTML, CSS and JavaScript based Sugar, though this should not be needed at all due to the interoperability of the applied web technologies. Personally and honestly, I am not very interested in programming for Sugarfox, because of another related project that is the updated respectively extended version of B2W now called Boot to WebCore, which should get our C++Core based on the Cling C/C++ interpreter besides the still optionally available JavaScriptCore. For sure, this could become another option for the Sugar learning environment. Nevertheless, you can ask me everything related with software technology, software architecture and so on. Have fun Christian Stroetmann [1] www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2013/october.htm#09.October.2013 [2] Hacking Gaia developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Platform/Gaia/Hacking [3] Boot to WebKit and Boot to WebCore www.ontonics.com/innovation/pipeline.htm#boottowebkit This is a very interesting development as a possible base platform for a future fully html based Sugar. B2G always felt like the perfect platform for it, if not because it wouldn't (fully) work on a normal Linux distro. -- Forwarded message -- From: *Hugh Tay* h...@hadronization.com mailto:h...@hadronization.com Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2014 Subject: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86 To: dev-...@lists.mozilla.org mailto:dev-...@lists.mozilla.org Hello everyone, I would like to initiate a new open-source community project to port FireFox OS to the Intel/AMD x86-64 platform. I'm thinking along the lines of the port for RasPi that Oleg Romashin developed - executing Gecko on top of a vanilla Linux kernel with only the essential drivers/libraries loaded. Supposedly this method would let us run FF-OS on an x86 PC like other Linux distros; e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora; just that its UI would be Gecko instead of KDE or Gnome. This way we should also be able to reduce our dependence on Android as the backbone of FireFox OS. Perhaps further down the line we could also take advantage of UEFI booting and B2G in 10 seconds? Would anyone be interested in contributing to this effort? Looking forward to an exciting time ahead! Hugh ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-...@lists.mozilla.org javascript:; https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Hi Christian, 2014-02-26 16:33 GMT+01:00 sugar-devel-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org: I would like to inform you all about the following points: 1. We have registered our project Sugarfox (TM), publicated on the 9th of October 2013 ([1]), at Mozilla Firefox OS and its related marketplace with the creation of a partner account for our company with the following short description: Sugarfox brings the learning environment Sugar in its web version based on HTML and JS together with the Firefox OS. Interesting. But what is exactly the status of this project ? I'm very surprised that your first action was to register Sugarfox like you apparently registered hundred of others marks [1] like... One tablet per child :-) Lionel. [1] http://www.ontomax.com/about/disclaimer.htm ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Bonjour Lionel The status of the project is that for example you can directly put your Sugar Web on it, if you have a sound software architecture, or said in other words, if you have not used JS libraries that are specific to a web browser engine, though in general I have not seen such a library in the past. Also, my first action was to develop this whole concept, inclusive this software architecture last year. I have registered the Sugarfox at Mozilla Firefox OS. Let me simply call the issue with the marks as irrelevant here. The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. Have fun Christian Stroetmann Hi Christian, 2014-02-26 16:33 GMT+01:00 sugar-devel-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org mailto:sugar-devel-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org: I would like to inform you all about the following points: 1. We have registered our project Sugarfox (TM), publicated on the 9th of October 2013 ([1]), at Mozilla Firefox OS and its related marketplace with the creation of a partner account for our company with the following short description: Sugarfox brings the learning environment Sugar in its web version based on HTML and JS together with the Firefox OS. Interesting. But what is exactly the status of this project ? I'm very surprised that your first action was to register Sugarfox like you apparently registered hundred of others marks [1] like... One tablet per child :-) Lionel. [1] http://www.ontomax.com/about/disclaimer.htm ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. Are you the OLPC headquarter? ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. No, it is called XO-4 Touch, and is not a tablet, but a laptop. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-4_Touch Are you the OLPC headquarter? I am contracted by them and work closely with them, and have for many years. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Wed 26.02.2014 23:03, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. No, it is called XO-4 Touch, and is not a tablet, but a laptop. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-4_Touch Are you the OLPC headquarter? I am contracted by them and work closely with them, and have for many years. Who said that the XO-1 and XO-4 are tablets? Nevertheless, thanks for the clarifications so that we all can dream on. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. No, it is called XO-4 Touch, and is not a tablet, but a laptop. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-4_Touch Are you the OLPC headquarter? I am contracted by them and work closely with them, and have for many years. I'm sorry to say, but now I'm totally confused: On Thu, 27.02.2014 00:01, James Cameron wrote to laptop.org: An Android 4.3.1 (Jelly Bean) build for the XO-4 laptop. OLPC is preparing an Android, Sugar and Gnome dual-boot system for the XO-4. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:33:05AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed 26.02.2014 23:03, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. No, it is called XO-4 Touch, and is not a tablet, but a laptop. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-4_Touch Are you the OLPC headquarter? I am contracted by them and work closely with them, and have for many years. Who said that the XO-1 and XO-4 are tablets? You said The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is.. What you said was wrong to me, because the XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and also because there is no project One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) at the moment, and when there was such a project (a pilot in Ethiopia) it did not use XO-1. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:40:34AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. No, it is called XO-4 Touch, and is not a tablet, but a laptop. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-4_Touch Are you the OLPC headquarter? I am contracted by them and work closely with them, and have for many years. I'm sorry to say, but now I'm totally confused: Perhaps this is a language barrier. Can you access a translator? On Thu, 27.02.2014 00:01, James Cameron wrote to laptop.org: An Android 4.3.1 (Jelly Bean) build for the XO-4 laptop. OLPC is preparing an Android, Sugar and Gnome dual-boot system for the XO-4. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Thu, 27.02.2014 00:45, James Cameron wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:33:05AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed 26.02.2014 23:03, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: On Wed, 26.02.2014 22:30, James Cameron wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is. The XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and I'm not aware of any OTPC project. Because OLPC simply called it XO-4. No, it is called XO-4 Touch, and is not a tablet, but a laptop. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-4_Touch Are you the OLPC headquarter? I am contracted by them and work closely with them, and have for many years. Who said that the XO-1 and XO-4 are tablets? You said The One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) project is very well known by the OLPC headquarter as the XO-1 with touchscreen is.. What you said was wrong to me, because the XO-1 never had a touchscreen, and also because there is no project One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) at the moment, and when there was such a project (a pilot in Ethiopia) it did not use XO-1. For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). You are contracted by OLPC? So, please could you take a look and tell me when the OLPC announced their tablet computer. [1] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
Christian Stroetmann stroetm...@ontolab.com writes: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). A trademark is not just about adding (TM) after a bunch of other trademarks. I doubt you officially registered One Tablet Per Child. I mean... One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM)... a new trademark with LEGO within it, seriously? -- Bastien ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:55:36AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). You are contracted by OLPC? So, please could you take a look and tell me when the OLPC announced their tablet computer. No, I do not have access to those records. Relying only on public record, http://blog.laptop.org/ the multi-child XO Tablet manufactured by Vivitar and OLPC was announced as available for retail sale at Walmart.com on July 16 2013. There was an announcement before that on January 9 2013 associated with CES. I don't see how this is relevant to sugar-devel@ mailing list. [1] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
james wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:55:36AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) respectively One Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division intellitablet since July 2012 (see [1]). You are contracted by OLPC? So, please could you take a look and tell me when the OLPC announced their tablet computer. No, I do not have access to those records. Relying only on public record, http://blog.laptop.org/ the multi-child XO Tablet manufactured by Vivitar and OLPC was announced as available for retail sale at Walmart.com on July 16 2013. There was an announcement before that on January 9 2013 associated with CES. I don't see how this is relevant to sugar-devel@ mailing list. [1] intelliTablet Announcement One Tablet Per Child (OTPC) and One Pad Per Child (OPPC/OPsup2;C) #1 www.ontomax.com/newsarchive/2012/july.htm#17.July.2012 from the pictures at that link, it seems to be related to the XO-3, which, while under developmentd for a very long time, was never released, nor produced in more than prototype quantities. and, it was a very different beast than the XO Tablet produced by vivitar. (i know that james knows this -- i'm just clarifying for others.) paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
I agree, it has potential. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86
2014-02-25 18:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: This is a very interesting development as a possible base platform for a future fully html based Sugar. B2G always felt like the perfect platform for it, if not because it wouldn't (fully) work on a normal Linux distro. Interesting Daniel, thanks. I also think the B2G is very aligned to what we are trying to do. I've been trying Firefox OS with both the Firefox add-on and the b2g binary. It looks promising. -- .. manuq .. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
