On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote:
> Walter, > > Nobody needs to be a lawyer to understand this. > > *We (sugar labs users) simply didn't have permission to do use therefore > it was removed.* > > > Any one else interested in Sugar UI in the Community is welcome to join > forces and help me address this issue as an opportunity for the Community > to work together engaging in a Collaborative Design Dynamic and if required > define a more suitable substitute for Sebastian's commit. > How can you say "work together" and "engaging in a Collaborative design" while Sebastian just pushed to master his own design unilaterally. Revert it, and then someone might take this invitation seriously. > > I personally love the feet. They set a clear starting point for the Sugar > experience and they look very cute. Try it changing the colors here, see > how it looks: > > http://laboratoriosazucar.org/azucarizador/ > > My young children really liked them, also several teachers in SM. > > I will test further among our programming students as well. > > > Regards > > 2017-09-14 6:08 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Legislation in Latinamerica is very restrictive regarding Trademark >>> policies. >>> >>> If OLPC fans want to keep the old logo in their own version of Sugar >>> that is OK, but not possible in the main branch. >>> >> >> Laura, >> >> I would appreciate you stop you speculations and assertions about >> trademark law and let Tony do his job. He asked some very specific >> questions. I would appreciate that you try to address them. >> >> regards. >> >> -walter >> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> 2017-09-13 19:48 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> As probably most of you are aware, yesterday one of our community >>>> members unilaterally changed the xo-computer icon in sugar-artwork. The >>>> ensuing discussion about the change is in the github pull request, "Urgent >>>> fix logos", [1] >>>> >>>> The gist of his concern is that OLPC has a trademark on the XO artwork >>>> [2] and there was concern that we were infringing and consequently >>>> downstream users would also be infringing. >>>> >>>> As Sean Daly points out, this is not the first time that the topic has >>>> come up [3, 4]. "In the past, OLPC was amenable to the use of the xo >>>> logo in Sugar, but asked we not use it in marketing materials without a >>>> formal co-branding licensing agreement." >>>> >>>> Personally, I think that OLPC was explicit in making the Sugar artwork >>>> available under a GPL licence and that this is hence moot. But I am not >>>> qualified to make that assessment. Consequently, I asked Adam Holt, our SFC >>>> liaison, to raise the issue with the legal team. Tony asked us to consider >>>> the following questions: >>>> >>>> 1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and >>>> does the SLOBs want to keep it there? >>>> 2) Assuming the SLOBs want to keep the XO logo in sugar-artwork: what >>>> outcome would the SLOBs *prefer* to see happen? E.g., >>>> - Does Sugar want downstream users to be able to redistribute and >>>> modify Sugar's codebase with or without the XO trademark file included in >>>> the program? >>>> - Does the SLOBs want downstream users to be able to modify and >>>> redistribute the XO trademark image itself, or is that less important to >>>> Sugar? >>>> >>>> The answer to the first part of Tony's first question is that the XO >>>> logo was part of Sugar from the very beginning -- before Sugar Labs was >>>> split from OLPC. We've never changed it. >>>> >>>> Regarding the second part: does the SLOBs want to keep it there? is >>>> something we need to discuss. Personally, I think it serves its purpose >>>> well -- a childcentric interface and it is "iconic" of Sugar. I see no >>>> reason to change it. >>>> >>>> Regarding Tony's second question, I would want downstream users to have >>>> as much freedom as possible: to use or not use the XO icon as they choose. >>>> However, I don't see the need to expand beyond the context of Sugar. If >>>> someone downstream wants to use the artwork for some other purpose, that is >>>> not our issue (although I that the GPL license would be the relevant >>>> determinant.) >>>> >>>> What do others think? >>>> >>>> Note, I think we should defer the discussion of what we would use as >>>> replacement artwork until we resolve the current issue. >>>> >>>> regards. >>>> >>>> -walter >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/pull/96 >>>> [2] http://www.trademarkia.com/xo-78880051.html >>>> [3] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-December/003059.html >>>> [4] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2011-October/014245.html >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Walter Bender >>>> Sugar Labs >>>> http://www.sugarlabs.org >>>> <http://www.sugarlabs.org> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SLOBs mailing list >>>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Laura V. >>> * I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org* >>> >>> “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” >>> ~ L. Victoria >>> >>> Happy Learning! >>> #LearningByDoing >>> #Projects4good >>> #IDesignATSugarLabs >>> #WeCanDoBetter >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> <http://www.sugarlabs.org> >> > > > > -- > Laura V. > * I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org* > > “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” > ~ L. Victoria > > Happy Learning! > #LearningByDoing > #Projects4good > #IDesignATSugarLabs > #WeCanDoBetter > > _______________________________________________ > 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