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

[Sebastian Silva]

"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*." [1]

    - citing from the GNU Coding standards, section 2.3 "Trademarks"

    https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Trademarks.html

Emphasis added by me.

Regards,
Sebastian

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/
>
> Do we then go to JavaScript(tm) which is a trademark of Oracle(R)?
>
> 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 and OLPC over the logo, except as part of a historical reference which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
>         redistributed.`/
>
>     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
>     https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy
>     <https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy>:
>
>         /`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.
>
>     Regards,
>     Sebastian
>
>

------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-sur/attachments/20170917/e8604715/attachment.html>