<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>"What is legally required, as regards other people’s trademarks,
is to <b>avoid using them</b> in ways which a reader might
reasonably understand <b>as</b> naming or <b>labeling</b> <b>our
own</b> programs or <b>activities</b>." [1]</p>
<p> - citing from the GNU Coding standards, section 2.3
"Trademarks" <br>
</p>
<p> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Trademarks.html">https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Trademarks.html</a><br>
</p>
Emphasis added by me.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/09/17 21:18, Samuel Greenfeld
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+cAqjNZrXbak5Q6zmf8jEgTepU9ac=0CSx8EVQH+r1JEtpZwg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>But I intentionally gave the very simple examples...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
Should Sugar refuse to include a Python(tm) editor? Or
change programming languages because we proudly say Sugar is
written in Python(tm)? <a
href="https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do we then go to JavaScript(tm) which is a trademark of
Oracle(R)?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Or be confused with any number of products (shoes, hand
lotion, etc.) which also have trademarks for the "Python"
name?<br>
<br>
</div>
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.
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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historical reference which both companies have. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>OLPC's website, while updated, still promotes Sugar on
XO-1.75's and the "XO Laptop Touch" (by specs, likely a XO-4).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM,
Sebastian Silva <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sebastian@fuentelibre.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sebastian@fuentelibre.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_-5783401123501716958moz-cite-prefix">On
16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:<br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
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?</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples
will serve to clarify the issue:<br>
<br>
The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from
Red Hat Linux in order to be able to distribute it
legally.<br>
<br>
Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article.<br>
<blockquote><i>`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source
code to create a final product very similar to RHEL.
Red Hat's </i><i><b>branding and logos are changed</b></i><i>
because Red Hat does not allow them to be
redistributed.`</i><br>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
Quoting directly from
<a class="m_-5783401123501716958moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/<wbr>terms-and-policies/<wbr>intellectual-property-policy</a>:<br>
<blockquote><i>`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</i><i><b> remove and
replace the Trademarks</b></i><i> and will need to
recompile the source code to create your own
binaries.`</i><br>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Sebastian<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>