[Sur] [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon

Vie Sep 15 11:35:05 EDT 2017

2017-09-15 10:24 GMT-05:00 Ignacio Rodríguez <ignacio en sugarlabs.org>:

> +1 from me.
> I know people tend to relate Sugar to OLPC, in fact I still do sometimes
> (it's easier to explain someone that "Sugar" is the thing that runs in the
> XO's).
>
> But the icon should stay as it was.
> If you want to change the icon for your deployments just change it (wasn't
> that what you guys were trying to say?)
>

Ignacio,

First am glad you have decide to stay in the oversight board. Your
resignation was not clear.

I hope this means you are going dedicate time to the oversight tasks. :D

About the icon-debug, the goal is for the main Sugar branch to be "libre"
of Trademarks> global and future users should be able to modify and
redistribute Sugar as a 100% libre software and that is what we all want,
don;t you?

> Thx
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM Sameer Verma <sverma en sfsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Sameer
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2017 7:15 AM, "Samson Goddy" <samsongoddy en gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2017 3:12 PM, "Walter Bender" <walter.bender en gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The discussion regarding the status of the xo-computer icon seems to be
>>> going around  in circles. In my opinion, this makes it even more imperative
>>> that the Sugar Labs oversight board respond to Tony's questions so that
>>> Tony can proceed with his investigation in to our options.
>>>
>>> To state the obvious, this discussion is not about whether or not we can
>>> change the xo-computer icon -- we can do that at any time in consultation
>>> with our design team. The discussion is about whether or not we make that
>>> decision on our own terms or be forced into a change.
>>>
>>> Motion: To answer the questions posed by the SFC regarding the
>>> xo-computer icon as follows:
>>> (Q1) Why is the XO logo included in the sugar-artwork repo now -- and
>>> does the SLOBs want to keep it there?
>>> (A1) The xo-computer icon has been part of Sugar since we first
>>> designed and built Sugar (beginning in 2006) and we would like to keep it
>>> there until such time as the design team decides there is a reason to
>>> change it.
>>> (Q2) 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?
>>> (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.
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate if someone would second this motion and, if it passes,
>>> the results be reported to Tony by Adam, our SFC liaison. Of course, if the
>>> motion does not pass, we will need to continue the discussion.
>>>
>>> I second the motion.
>>>
>>>
>>> regards.
>>>
>>> -walter
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Walter Bender <walter.bender en gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM
>>> Subject: [SLOB] xo-computer icon
>>> To: SLOBs <slobs en lists.sugarlabs.org>
>>> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel <sugar-devel en lists.sugarlabs.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walter Bender
>>> Sugar Labs
>>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>> <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>> IAEP en lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>> IAEP en lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP en lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP en lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>

-- 
Laura V.
* I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ L. Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-sur/attachments/20170915/52f2d326/attachment.html>