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 > 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 sense anymore to keep it > in the trademark register because any other entity could demand its > deleting from the trademark register by referring to this GPL licensing. > > > > > Best regards > Christian Stroetmann > > > 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. > > Walter > > On Sep 15, 2017 12:39 PM, "Christian Stroetmann" <stroetm...@ontolab.com> > wrote: > >> 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 trademark and as long as Sugarlabs has no written >> allowance to use it the alleged legal problem exists indeed. But ... >> 3. OLPC has tolerated the use since 2006 and did not change its position >> after OLPC and Sugarlabs departed. What is developing in this case is a >> so-called customary right, which means that Sugarlabs might already have >> the right to use the OLPC logo. I would recommend that OLPC and Sugarlabs >> get together, pay the fee together, and care for the trademark against >> misuse together. >> 2. Furthermore, one of the most important points when handling an >> infringement of a trademark right is how the broad public (e.g. 65% of a >> representative group as accepted by a judge) interprets a >> sign/logo/trademark and connects it to an entity (e.g. person, >> organization, corporation) respectively is answering the question if a >> confusion of the broad public between the trademark owner and the trademark >> user does exist. The latter might be the case with every logo that is an >> abstraction of the Vitruvian (see da Vinci) in the case of the OLPC logo >> and an abstraction or clipart of a foot in the case of the Gnome logo. >> 4. As far as I have noticed it, the OLPC logo is used as a functional >> icon of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) and hence it is covered by the >> GPL in an illegal way. Sugarlabs is not allowed to impose any other license >> on signs/logos/trademarks that it does not own, is not allowed explicitly >> to use in this way, or has no copyright for. >> 5. I like the OX logo because it is a nice abstraction of the Vitruvian >> and similar graphics. Nevertheless, an alternative logo or this function >> that allows to select an individual logo by the users might be interesting >> as well. >> 6. As far as I noticed, there are children on this mailing list, too, and >> everybody should be an ideal for them when discussing and solving problems. >> Somehow, this does not always work as it should do. ;) >> >> >> >> Best regards >> Christian Stroetmann >> >> 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 <sebast...@fuentelibre.org>: >> >>> 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://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar >>> -artwork/sugar-artwork-0.111-libre.tar.xz >>> >>> *This release comes with a stern warning to downstream distributors and >>> users, that the XO computer icon is trademarked and, in the absence of a >>> suitable (trademark) license, it constitutes a risk to downstream >>> developers and deployments.* >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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
