2017-09-16 9:10 GMT-05:00 Martin Abente :
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Sebastian Silva <
> sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16/09/17 03:31, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote:
>>
>> Sebastian, do you mind me saying/assuming that you're bringing this up
>> because James released 0.111 a
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Sebastian Silva
wrote:
>
> On 16/09/17 03:31, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote:
>
> Sebastian, do you mind me saying/assuming that you're bringing this up
> because James released 0.111 and you think it has something to do with
> OLPC?.
>
> *Ibiam Chihurumnaya*
>
>
> Hi I
On 16/09/17 00:07, Sebastian Silva wrote:
> (...) his proprietary Ubuntu fork (that OLPC distributes privately
> including unpublished Debian packaging for many Sugar activities).
I thought a reference for this would be in order:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/16.04.4
Quoting:
/"16.04.4 is an OLPC OS
On 16/09/17 03:31, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote:
> Sebastian, do you mind me saying/assuming that you're bringing this up
> because James released 0.111 and you think it has something to do with
> OLPC?.
>
> *Ibiam Chihurumnaya*
Hi Ibiam,
Thanks for your interest! It inspires us to continue to make
Sebastian, do you mind me saying/assuming that you're bringing this up
because James released 0.111 and you think it has something to do with
OLPC?.
*Ibiam Chihurumnaya*
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Sebastian Silva
wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> I would like to point out to you and the rest of the c
Hi Martin,
I would like to point out to you and the rest of the community that
initially this was a pull request. Gonzalo "unilaterally" shut down the
pull request calling it "nonsense". This arrogance prompted me to use
the privileges which I have gained in order to make a point, that this
is a g
Another unilateral action from Sebastian, and a unprecedented new low.
This "release" cannot be taken seriously.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Christian Stroetmann <
stroetm...@ontolab.com> wrote:
> Hello Walter
>
> I did not knew the history, so please dump my related points 1, 2, 3, and
>
Hello Walter
I did not knew the history, so please dump my related points 1, 2, 3, and 4.
What I am wondering now is the fact that OLPC licensed its trademark
under the GPL, which from my point of view would mean that they have
given up its trademark rights already respectively it makes no sen
Christian,
Thank you for your synopsis. I think you make good points. However, I
think the situation is further complicated by the fact that OLPC released
Sugar Artwork under the GPL prior to the creation of Sugar Labs. I defer
to our lawyer at SFC, to sort through this on our behalf.
Regards.
Hello Everybody
I followed the discussion about the OLPC logo with great interest. Sadly
to say, I was already running out of popcorn last month.
First of all, someone in this threat said the right things about
trademarks. I would like to add the following points:
1. The OLPC logo is a tradem
This is a unilateral change, both of you are forcing your opinions over the
community.
This is not the way Sugarlabs should work.
Gonzalo
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Laura Vargas
wrote:
> Thank you Sebastian,
>
> This debug was long time due. Now Sugar can be called "Libre" :D
>
> I hones
Thank you Sebastian,
This debug was long time due. Now Sugar can be called "Libre" :D
I honestly didn't ever like the OLPC logo icon and the new feet are very
cute!
Regards
2017-09-15 10:08 GMT-05:00 Sebastian Silva :
> Hello Sugar friends,
>
> I am assuming the responsibility of making a ne
Hello Sugar friends,
I am assuming the responsibility of making a new release of
Sugar-Artwork package featuring the omission of a Trademarked logo.
To avoid conflicts with incumbent parties, I have not increased the
version number, instead I have tagged the release as 0.111-libre.
https://downl
13 matches
Mail list logo
