According to the result of this motion, sugar-artwork repository should be updated.
Gonzalo On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Samuel Greenfeld <sam...@greenfeld.org> > wrote: > >> I agree with Sameer; if we want to debate this, this really needs a >> lawyer's opinion. Either that or just asking OLPC Inc. what they consider >> acceptable. >> > > In fact, getting a lawyer's opinion is exactly what we are doing. > >> >> Sugar has been using the XO logo for approximately 11 years now. My >> non-lawyer opinion is that if someone was to complain, they would be barred >> by estoppel for having known about it, but failing to make a claim in a >> timely manner. >> >> By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be >> distributed because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and Ubuntu >> cannot be distributed because it contains the name and logos owned by >> Canonical? >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Silva < >> sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15/09/17 09:12, Walter Bender wrote: >>> >>> (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. >>> >>> >>> There is a (hopefully not intentional?) flaw in this answer. The board >>> was in a rush to pass the motion, but it should be more careful when >>> communicating with our legal counsel. >>> >>> SLOBs, please clarify: >>> >>> "(...) we would like our downstream users to be able to use all of our >>> artwork under the terms of that license (GPL)" >>> >>> Sugar Labs does not distribute Sugar to end users. Instead it >>> distributes Sugar to distributors (Debian, Fedora) who have their own >>> downstream projects (OLPC, Trisquel, Ubuntu). In turn these distributions >>> are often bundled with hardware vendors products or local service >>> provider's services: *These last groups are the most threatened by a >>> potential Trademark dispute.* >>> >>> Does restricting the answer to "users" mean Sugar Labs Oversight Board >>> does not care about these actor's freedoms? >>> >>> Please also clarify: >>> >>> "As far as the use of any trademark image outside of the context of >>> Sugar, we have no opinion. " >>> >>> This is contradictory with the previous statement. The terms of the GPL >>> provide for licensees to be able to use the source for *any purpose.* A >>> Trademarked logo cannot be used for any purpose. This is basically the >>> legal reason to keep any Trademark out of the Sugar User Interface. >>> >>> Regards and happy Software Freedom Day to all, >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >>> i...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLOBs mailing list >> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs >> >> > > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > <http://www.sugarlabs.org> > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > i...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- [image: photo] *Gonzalo Odiard* Lider de proyecto tel.: <tel.:+4210-7748>2081-6424 y 2082-0312 | www.trinom.io Av Calchaqui 4936ยท 2do Piso. Quilmes <http://www.facebook.com/trinomiosrl> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/trinom-io>
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel