[Sur] [IAEP] [SLOB] Motion regarding xo-computer icon
sebastian en fuentelibre.org
Dom Sep 17 09:13:01 EDT 2017
"What is legally required, as regards other people’s trademarks, is to
*avoid using them* in ways which a reader might reasonably understand
*as* naming or *labeling* *our own* programs or *activities*." 
- citing from the GNU Coding standards, section 2.3 "Trademarks"
Emphasis added by me.
On 16/09/17 21:18, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
> But I intentionally gave the very simple examples...
> While RHEL/CentOS (and many other open source/commercial hybrid
> projects) rebrand their free versions because a complete replacement
> causes obvious confusion, these projects themselves include many
> products with trademarked names.
> Should Sugar refuse to include a Python(tm) editor? Or change
> programming languages because we proudly say Sugar is written in
> Python(tm)? https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
> Or be confused with any number of products (shoes, hand lotion, etc.)
> which also have trademarks for the "Python" name?
> Trademarks come into play primarily when there is confusion. And OLPC
> allegedly muddied the waters early on by allowing their name and logos
> to be used by OLPC France, OLPC SF, etc.
> It's not clear at this point if there is confusion between Sugar Labs
> and OLPC over the logo, except as part of a historical reference which
> both companies have.
> If there was clear proof that OLPC was using the XO logo to promote
> Endless then there might be something. If OLPC explicitly asked Sugar
> to change the icon, then that would be something to be considered.
> OLPC's website, while updated, still promotes Sugar on XO-1.75's and
> the "XO Laptop Touch" (by specs, likely a XO-4).
> Given we still know people at OLPC, and OLPC people who went to
> Endless, I would have expected to hear something by now if they
> formally wanted to break ties with Sugar.
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Sebastian Silva
> <sebastian en fuentelibre.org <mailto:sebastian en fuentelibre.org>> wrote:
> On 16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
>> 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?
> Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples will serve to
> clarify the issue:
> The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from Red Hat
> Linux in order to be able to distribute it legally.
> Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article.
> /`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a
> final product very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's //*branding and
> logos are changed*//because Red Hat does not allow them to be
> And I also know that, while you can distribute Ubuntu, you cannot
> make a derivative distribution of it and call it
> anything-like-buntu, or you will have problems with Canonical Inc.
> Quoting directly from
> /`Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be
> approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going
> to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you
> must//*remove and replace the Trademarks*//and will need to
> recompile the source code to create your own binaries.`/
> As you can see, being this topic such a mess in general, Sugar
> Labs would serve its community well by staying clear of any
> Trademarks, as a general policy.
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
Más información sobre la lista de distribución olpc-Sur