Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting, 2009-12-18

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
10:00 walterbender good to see everyone here today...
10:00 I'd like to begin by wrapping up the discussion of Q2 from last week.
10:01 #topic Motion 4 SL should not be completely neutral about promoting distros
10:01 There was a revision to the motion proposed by email during the post-meeting discussion:
10:02 "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and infrastructure. SL Marketing may strategically decide to focus resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more effectively."
10:02 Seemed to be consensus on this wording.
10:02 tomeu likes it
10:02 SeanDaly I believe there was consensus
10:02 cjb morning all
10:02 tomeu took us a time to get it :)
10:02 walterbender Bernie: would you propose this as a motion so we can vote on it?
10:03 bernie walterbender: sure
10:03 bernie: I need some time to integrate the proposed changes, would we like to move on to the next topic, meanwhile?
10:03 walterbender I second bernie's motion
10:04 bernie: OK. If you want. Let me know when you are ready.
10:04 #topic Q3: SoaS Name
10:04 Is everyone familiar with this issue?
10:05 (See http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/D[…]OAS#Q3:_SoaS_name)
10:05 bernie MOTION: Q2: Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and infrastructure. SL Marketing may strategically decide to focus resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more effectively.
10:06 walterbender seconded
10:06 any further discussion needed at this point?
10:06 bernie yea
10:06 SeanDaly ready to vote
10:06 tomeu I think we discussed it quite a bit already
10:06 walterbender I think we covered it in email... I'll link the thread in the minutes.
10:06 let's vote
10:07 yea
10:07 tomeu yea
10:07 SeanDaly yea
10:07 cjb yea
10:07 CanoeBerry yea
10:07 bernie mchua: mel?
10:07 walterbender I am not sure she is here...
10:07 I'll ask for an email vote, but the motion passes.
10:08 Nice job with the rewording :)
10:08 bernie walterbender: she was here a few mins ago: 9:56 * mchua_afk is now known as mchua
10:08 walterbender So shall we tackle the name issue?
10:08 This one seemed unresolved by the DP
10:09 SeanDaly that's right no consensus
10:09 walterbender So it is up to us to try to come up with a decision.
10:09 cjb inclined to answer yes
10:10 SeanDaly perhaps, taking a cue from Q2,
10:10 we can craft a text which clarifies the issues
10:10 cjb SeanDaly: want to try wording a motion?
10:10 walterbender Here is my opinion in brief: if someone starts a project, they have a right to the name of that project and any fork should be clearly distinguishable.
10:10 bernie cjb: yes as in "please don't use SoaS unless you refer to SoaS-Fedora"?
10:10 cjb bernie: yes
10:11 SeanDaly My position is, confusion is a deadly for marketing
10:11 at the same time, vital to approve & support Sugar remixes/spins
10:11 bernie before I answer this question, I feel I need to know if a derivative of SoaS-fedora is acceptable or not
10:11 walterbender On the other hand, if the community invests a lot of its ergs into the initiative, there is some need to ack that contribution
10:12 mchua reads backscroll, sorry I'm late
10:12 walterbender mchua: welcome :)
10:12 SeanDaly there's a support question. Virtual, since support is limited, but
10:12 mchua yea on the Q2 motion, for the record.
10:12 cjb bernie: of course it is, if it's not called SoaS
10:12 SeanDaly if name is reused with different and therefore confusing marketing angle, that's a problem
10:13 bernie cjb: oh, then you'd be in favor of calling something Sugar on a Stick Remix or Sugar on a Stick Grove?
10:13 cjb bernie: not really, no
10:13 SeanDaly Actually I consider this question to be closely linked to trademark policy
10:13 mchua Yeah, I had two questions on this note
10:13 tomeu I would delegate that question on the marketing team
10:13 mchua 1. Sugar is a SL trademark (via the SFC). What is the policy for usage of this trademark?
10:13 cjb bernie: I'd rather a completely new name was used, since the whole point is to avoid confusion
10:13 satellit sugar-desktop on a stick?
10:13 SeanDaly I've done lots of thinking about that and i have a proposal
10:13 karenesq fyi, the trademark policy as I proposed it intitially says if it's not "substantially unmodified" should be referred to as "derived from", "based on" or "a derivative of"
10:13 mchua 2. Is SoaS a SL trademark? If so, what is the policy for usage of this trademark?
10:14 curious about SeanDaly's proposal
10:14 bernie SeanDaly: can we just say "you are allowed to use the name in non-confusing ways" in our trademark policy, or would it be too vague and legally ambiguous?
10:14 walterbender maybe we could break the discussion into two parts: if the word Sugar were not in the name vs when it is.
10:14 bernie karenesq: hello karen!
10:14 karenesq and overall that you can't use any marks that could cause confusion as to the identity of the SL project or the provenance of its software
10:14 cjb I guess I'm trying to answer this question without using trademark law at all.
10:14 SeanDaly bernie: it's us who has to decide if it's confusing or not
10:14 karenesq hi bernie!
10:15 agreed, the law hinges on whether the use is confusing or not
10:15 SeanDaly ultimately, in my view, we should accord icenses for use of our trademarks
10:15 karenesq we're in the process of preparing the SoaS registration
10:15 mchua cjb: can we? My impression is that we'd need trademark law to back up whatever decision/policy we set, but ianal.
10:15 walterbender cjb: I'd like to resolve it in general terms but the use of the word Sugar adds a complication (or responsibility n our part)
10:15 cjb the question itself avoids mentioning trademark law, too:  "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using [..]" clearly doesn't depend on the law
10:15 bernie karenesq: do you mean this? http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]ernance/Trademark
10:16 SeanDaly walterbender: I agree, and that's what I want to deal with
10:16 mchua cjb: but the basis on which we're able to enforce that request is trademark law.
10:16 karenesq bernie: yes
10:16 CanoeBerry FYI many countries give you commonlaw trademark protection even if you don't file
10:16 karenesq CanoeBerry: yes, and the US is one of those
10:16 walterbender SeanDaly: but can we agree that a project (let's use Turtle Art as an example) in general should control its name?
10:17 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: I believe we need to file with WIPO
10:17 cjb mchua: I think the social enforcement of "this is what SL says you're allowed to do" is actually much stronger than the legal protection.
10:17 walterbender and that if someone wants to fork TA, they need to call it something different?
10:17 SeanDaly walterbender: yes I fully agree
10:17 walterbender do others agree in principle?
10:17 SeanDaly walterbender: unless a license to do otherwise accorded
10:17 cjb yes, agree
10:18 walterbender SeanDaly: sure, but I think the license is usually to make derivatives, but not necessarily to the name
10:18 SeanDaly what makes the Sugar case "sticky" (pun intended) is that referring to Sugar can help build the brand
10:18 walterbender karenesq: could you clarify that point?
10:18 mchua cjb: agree. I do think they are both necessary but not sufficient, only both together are sufficient (enough to let me sleep at night about it).
10:18 SeanDaly walterbender: there's a license for the code, and a license for trademark use
10:18 karenesq walterbender: sure, which point?
10:18 walterbender SeanDaly: I agree. Bit I wanted to get this general principle established before the TM discussion
10:18 SeanDaly franchisers do this for example
10:19 walterbender karenesq: the issue of a project fork using the name of the project
10:19 SeanDaly walterbender: i agree important
10:19 My approach is the following:
10:19 mchua walterbender: if a project in general should control its name, wouldn't it actually be sdziallas et al who should control the term 'SoaS'?
10:19 bernie mchua: I wonder who came up with the name Sugar on a Stick first.
10:20 walterbender karenesq: If I want to fork gzip, do I call it gzip or do I make it clear it is a derivative work?
10:20 SeanDaly we need to encourage Sugar variants adapted locally, with Activity mixes and so on
10:20 mchua perhaps asking SL to hold the trademark/registration on behalf of their project, but nevertheless.
10:20 bernie mchua: honestly, I first heard it from Caroline at Sugar Camp I.
10:20 cjb walterbender: I guess we have a real life example here with Food Force.
10:20 (Which I don't know the story behind, just that there appears to be two forks with the same name being run by different people who don't like each other.)
10:20 SeanDaly ...but we need to avoid confusion
10:20 karenesq sorry walterbender, I'm a slower typer! The way our policy is written for "sugarlabs", and the default operation under trademark law would make this the case
10:20 mchua bernie: but who actually /made/ it?
10:21 bernie: ideas are easy; doing is hard.
10:21 karenesq what we said in the policy that we drafted about SoaS was: You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key and refer to it as "Sugar on a Stick". However, you are encouraged to add a qualifying label to distinguish it from other distributions. For example, the "Sugar on a Stick Strawberry" Release is based on Fedora 11.
10:21 mchua sits back to listen to SeanDaly's proposal
10:21 tomeu bernie: well, you realize most things months after they happen :p
10:21 bernie mchua: I'm an engineer myself, but I see development as just one of the many phases of creating a product.
10:21 cjb karenesq: so, I guess we're actually debating a stronger answer here
10:21 SeanDaly karenesq: I wouldn't agree with that wording
10:22 walterbender karenesq: seems clear to me and I think we'd want to follow the same guidelines re this question and projects in general
10:22 karenesq so it sounds like the policy we want is close to that but with stronger requirements regarding the qualifying label
10:22 bernie tomeu: true, but nobody can stay on top of everything...
10:22 SeanDaly I was thinking about the fedora remix logo
10:22 cjb karenesq: no, we're actually saying that we don't want anyone other than the group already using the term to use "Sugar on a Stick" at all.
10:22 karenesq walterbender: it seems much closer to what we had proposed for the sugarlabs mark - can only use the name if substantially unmodified
10:22 cjb .. and if you want to make a derivative, which is fine, a totally different name should be used.
10:23 mchua SeanDaly: "we need to encourage Sugar variants adapted locally, with Activity mixes and so on, but we need to avoid confusion." What policy (or policy options) would fit that best?
10:23 walterbender cjb: well. not clear. I think we could ask people to qualify the term to make it clear it is not *the* SoaS
10:23 mchua is trying to figure out what viewpoints everyone is coming from here
10:23 SeanDaly is clearly coming from the marketing side of things
10:23 karenesq and if not substantially unmodified you must label as "derived from" "based on" or "a derivative of"
10:23 mchua karenesq is clearly coming from the lawyer side :)
10:23 walterbender mchua: I am in favor of clarity and fairness
10:23 SeanDaly difficulty arises if changes mean divergent marketing
10:24 karenesq mchua: yes, but we can adjust the policy to reflect what you think is right to the extent it is compatible with trademark law
10:24 SeanDaly So, I think we should license our trademarks with an equivalent to "fedora remix" logo
10:24 mchua I'm trying to optimize for community-building - what arrangment will make it easiest for me to get new folks involved to help the SoaS project(s)
10:24 SeanDaly: +1
10:24 bernie cjb: I'd allow using derivative names too, as in Red Hat Linux, Ubuntu Linux...
10:24 walterbender SeanDaly: I think we can promote SoaS as the Blueberry version while Triquel promotes toast and SUSE promotes foo
10:24 bernie SeanDaly: +1
10:24 cjb bernie: that's not an example
10:25 walterbender and I think Triquel for example has made it clear.
10:25 SeanDaly walterbender: yes, but if each calls it "Sugar on a Stick" there will be confusion
10:25 cjb bernie: an example of a derivative name here would be more like "Red Hat Linux cjb edition"
10:25 since we're talking about a derivative of a product
10:25 walterbender SeanDaly: to some degree, yes, because the qualifier will get dropped inevitably
10:25 bernie cjb: Both Red Hat and Linux are trademars, but the trademark holder of Linux is more permissive than Red Hat.
10:26 cjb ok
10:26 bernie cjb: I'd like us to be as permissive, if possible
10:26 walterbender cjb: I am running Fedora Linux cjb edition on my XO 1.5 :)
10:26 cjb walterbender: :)
10:26 SeanDaly what i would suggest is: a remix be called anything without the name Sugar in it, but has a SL equivalent of "fedora remix" label
10:26 mchua SeanDaly: hang on, I'm intrigued by your proposal, I wonder if it's the same thing I have in mind. I'm going to try to resummarize, can you tell me how far off I am?
10:26 karenesq well, we can only give permission so long as the qualifyer is present. For anything other than what we permit in the policy, you'd need a license
10:26 cjb bernie: I guess I disagree; I think the Red Hat policy is more appropriate for SoaS, and the Linux policy is more appropriate for Sugar
10:26 the more specific something is, the more reasonable it is to say "hey, other people, don't use that"
10:27 SeanDaly as it happens I have 15 or so proposals for SL sugar remix label
10:27 mchua SeanDaly: "Sugar" is an SL trademark, and if you want to use it in your product's name you can go through a process (that we'd need to set up) similar to how Fedora Remixes get to use the name "Fedora"
10:27 walterbender mchua: speaking of process, Karen and I have been working to clarify the process
10:27 bernie SeanDaly: the problem with adding qualifiers to Sugar on a Stick is that the name is already very long. If it were just one word (like Linux) it would be more natural.
10:27 cjb bernie: "Sugar on a Stick"'s very specific; it's basically a single product name.  There's no value to allowing derivatives, it only adds confusion.
10:27 mchua SeanDaly: (this is the part I'm less sure I grok you on) SoaS would be a product whose name uses the Sugar trademark, and would therefore have to go through that process to get permission
10:27 cjb that's my perspective, anyway :)
10:27 SeanDaly mchua: Yes, but what I think will work best is if the name of project doesn't include Sugar, but the remix label does
10:28 mchua SeanDaly: ...ooh, okay, that's intriguing.
10:28 walterbender mchua: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]s#License_request
10:28 SeanDaly mchua: yes - a project could be granted a license to use the name Sugar in the name
10:28 bernie cjb: Red Hat wants to undercut competition with their product (such as CentOS). We instead want to encourage it. I guess?
10:28 mchua thinks about Fedora remixes - they still have Fedora in the name
10:28 SeanDaly: would the "Sugar remix" label usage be separate from the "Sugar-in-your-project-name" usage?
10:28 walterbender mchua: and in the case of openSUSE, that would not be allowed at all
10:28 SeanDaly from a marketing standpoint, "remix" or "spin" not the best words
10:29 mchua SeanDaly: (i.e. would a project have to apply for the two separately?)
10:29 walterbender folks, are we drifting into the TM discussion?
10:29 cjb walterbender: yes
10:29 mchua yes.
10:29 SeanDaly mchua: my idea is: a generous trademark license for the remix logo, if the project doesn't have sugar in the name
10:29 cjb walterbender: mchua thinks it's relevant, I think
10:29 bernie hmm yes
10:29 SeanDaly and a negotiated license if Sugar is to be in the name
10:30 walterbender can we wrap up the specific SoaS topic or should we assume it will be resolved by the TM discussion?
10:30 cjb i.e. we can't decide whether to allow a specific trademark use without deciding what our trademark policy is
10:30 walterbender so let'
10:30 switch topics
10:30 SeanDaly walterbender: yes... in my view Q3 relies on tm discussion
10:30 walterbender #topic Trademark
10:30 bernie SeanDaly: +1
10:30 SeanDaly cjb: exactly
10:30 walterbender we'll come back to the previous topic.
10:30 mchua thanks.
10:31 cjb I think we asked this already -- is "Sugar on a Stick" currently a trademark we own?
10:31 SeanDaly We want to raise awareness of "Sugar"
10:31 walterbender I added some notes here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]inutes-2009-12-11
10:31 In some sense we have a communications problem more than anything else...
10:32 SeanDaly walterbender: that's my POV
10:32 walterbender from the end-user POV, they are not going to understand what a remix is or where the chain of support and responsibility lies.
10:32 karenesq Sugar on a Stick is a SL mark that from what I understand SL has common law interest in (at least in the US), we were planning to register on behalf of SL/Conservancy
10:32 SeanDaly My proposal is to build Sugar brand awareness through our remix logo
10:32 walterbender karenesq: I think the issue is to what extent to we want an open remix policy
10:33 associated with our brand
10:33 cjb okay.  so this clearly isn't a standard "what should we do with someone else's named project" thing; we're registering it and asserting ownership of the term by SL
10:33 karenesq walterbender: I understand, I was just answering cjb's question
10:33 SeanDaly walterbender: I think that's what my proposal will do
10:33 cjb so I suppose that answers mchua's question about whether this is delegated to sdziallas?
10:33 walterbender SeanDaly: could you restate your proposal?
10:33 SeanDaly what I would like is to reinforce the following ideas:
10:34 Sugar is educational software for children
10:34 Sugar is fun
10:34 Sugar is colorful, and varied
10:34 There is a Sugar ecosystem
10:34 You can adapt Sugar to your needs
10:34 But,
10:34 at the same time it is vital to have a unified marketing message
10:34 the way to do that is with the remix label,
10:35 but we words which reinforce the Sugar brand
10:35 and, we call them a (unary) something, implying there are others
10:35 bernie I would tend to agree
10:35 SeanDaly OK enough theory here are examples:
10:36 Trisquel Toast, a Sugar mix
10:36 Trisquel Toast, a Sugar confection
10:36 Trisquel Toast, a Sugar construction
10:36 Trisquel Toast, a Sugar variety
10:36 Trisquel Toast, a Sugar refinement
10:36 walterbender SeanDaly: +1 but do we need a mechanism of approval of the language people use?
10:36 SeanDaly I have 10 more but you get the picture
10:37 satellit sugar emulator running on different distributions. Called with sugar icon?
10:37 cjb satellit: yeah, that's fine
10:37 walterbender SeanDaly: I am completely happy as long as the language makes it clear what you re getting
10:37 SeanDaly walterbender: my idea is: Sugar not in the name, (and certain other conditions we can lay out), no approval necessary
10:37 karenesq SeanDaly: you can give people multiple choices like that, in the same way we had "a derivative of" or "based on"
10:37 bernie SeanDaly: not Trisquel Sugar?
10:37 cjb SeanDaly: it seems that this proposal needs a step where people submit their naming ideas to us
10:37 SeanDaly but, if Sugar in the name, case-by-case basis
10:38 walterbender People can do whatever they want, but the language needs to reflect that
10:38 cjb SeanDaly: because you could just have "Trisquel Toast, a Sugar release" and that would be really confusing
10:38 walterbender SeanDaly: yes. it seems to be a case-by-case discussion.
10:38 cjb SeanDaly: ok.  so you are proposing that we review/authorize every Sugar use.
10:38 karenesq you could have some formulations pre-approved but for any others you'd need permission
10:38 SeanDaly cjb: that's why we pick the word - a sugar-related word, not remix, not spin, not release
10:38 walterbender sweetened by
10:38 mchua chuckles
10:39 cjb SeanDaly: you mean, other people pick the word and then ask us if it's okay, or we pick it?
10:39 SeanDaly karenesq: yes quite, I'd like to draw that boundary at using Sugar in the project name
10:39 walterbender: :D
10:39 cjb: if Sugar not in the name and they respect conditions we publish, no approval necessary
10:39 walterbender SeanDaly: seems like a good boundary...
10:39 cjb I'm not so convinced on having our trademark policy be "if you want to use Sugar in your derivative name, you have to ask us first"; it's creating a large bottleneck and giving us lots of work
10:39 mchua I like SeanDaly's proposal. My litmus test is "I've found an excited new contributor who wants to make a-thing-that-uses-Sugar; can they sit down and go through the naming process quickly and get it out of the way so they can Make Stuff"?
10:40 cjb could we also come up with formulations that have Sugar in the name that we preapprove?
10:40 SeanDaly cjb: what large bottleneck? not that many versions yet
10:40 walterbender cjb: I think that was what Sean was saying
10:40 cjb walterbender: oh, I missed that
10:40 SeanDaly cjb: no, we can't I'm afraid, confusion risk too high
10:40 mchua cjb: I'd like to have SLOBs approve - even if a quick vote in a SLOBs meeting - each use of Sugar in a project name.
10:40 cjb mchua: huh, ok
10:41 mchua cjb: as long as projects know from the start that they'll have to wait 'till the next SLOBs meeting to get a final yes/no, I think that's okay.
10:41 walterbender cjb: I guess I am the one who misunderstood
10:41 mchua I mean, one week is not *that* bad.
10:41 SeanDaly I came to this through scenarios
10:41 cjb if other people agree, I won't get in the way.  :)
10:41 mchua and we can give them a clean yes/no if there's a good policy in place.
10:41 SeanDaly scenario 1: a spin by a school district or even country
10:41 scenario 2: a spin by an OEM
10:41 cjb mchua: I guess I feel that there's a not-very-concrete badness involved in introducing new ways in which people rely on SL to be able to get things done
10:41 walterbender cjb: the nice thing about it is that it brings public notice to the intention to use the name
10:42 cjb walterbender: that's true
10:42 SeanDaly scenario 3: a spin by an education systems provider
10:42 scenario 4: a developer doing cool stuff
10:42 bernie cjb: I agree with you. saying that you need to ask for permission is discriminatory. -1 from me.
10:42 cjb SeanDaly: to impatiently jump to the end, which I think is the answer to q3, am I right in thinking your proposal would be:
10:42 * if you want to use the word Sugar in your deriv. name, you have to ask us
10:43 * if your name has "Sugar on a Stick" in, and you aren't the spin SL marketing is pushing as SoaS, we will say no
10:43 ?
10:43 s/will say/will probably say/
10:43 SeanDaly cjb: yes, and we encourage use of our remix logo
10:44 because, the real possibility exists that in scenarios 1 or 2 above there could be a great contribution to raising Sugar awareness
10:44 cjb sdziallas raises a good point in #sugar, which is that last week we decided we weren't a distributor, and this week we're registering a trademark on a distribution
10:44 why are both of these things true?
10:44 walterbender point of clarification: if I "sweeten" my distro by adding Sugar, do I need to ask permission to say, Walter-GNU-Linux, sweetened by Sugar?
10:45 cjb walterbender: yes, that's the proposal
10:45 I think I prefer a compromise strategy
10:45 SeanDaly walterbender: slightly different approach for distros
10:45 cjb wherein custom names that have Sugar in are regulated
10:45 walterbender cjb: I think we could have some standard templates
10:45 cjb and "sweetened by Sugar" would be .. right, that
10:45 we'd make our policy pre-known on that.
10:45 walterbender cjb: +1
10:45 SeanDaly taking advantage of fact that there are few major ones, and together have quite small marketshare,
10:46 walterbender I think there is a line between using Sugar in the name and referring to Sugar in the product
10:46 cjb walterbender: that makes sense
10:46 SeanDaly I'd like a program to do joint marketing, and there could be different logo for distros
10:47 I'd be glad if distros talked about Sugar
10:47 walterbender Soas being an example of the former and Trisquel *with* Sugar being the latter
10:47 SeanDaly right now openSUSE does, but that's about it
10:47 walterbender SeanDaly: I think FSF would help us promote Trisquel with Sugar
10:47 SeanDaly walterbender: taking into account weakness of brand perception of distros,
10:48 startups are taking the approach we have, to brand as separate product
10:48 e.g. Jolicloud
10:48 walterbender karenesq: would Triquel need permission from Mozilla to say Trisquel with Firefox?
10:48 SeanDaly since boots up and underlying distro not visible
10:48 cjb walterbender: I'm sure
10:49 SeanDaly But, Sugar as a desktop option perceived a bit differently
10:49 walterbender cjb: if so, then maybe the pre-approval is appropriate
10:49 cjb .. but I'm not a lawyer, and we have one, so I should be quiet :)
10:49 bernie walterbender: Mozilla has one of the strictest trademark policies in the open source world.
10:49 walterbender SeanDaly: ^firefox^gnome
10:49 SeanDaly mozilla has topnotch marketing, but doesn't have our problem
10:49 cjb bernie: yeah, that's why I felt so sure.
10:49 bernie walterbender: they forced debian to rename Firefox to Iceweasel
10:50 cjb: lol ;-)
10:50 karenesq walterbender: well there are two questions there, 1) would it be permitted under their policy and 2) even if it isn't, is it still permitted under trademark law - you can use a mark if you're factually referring to a product
10:50 bernie walterbender: they shouldn't be imitated, I think. I'm more inclined in following the Linux Foundation permissive guidelines
10:50 karenesq it's called "nominative use"
10:51 cjb bernie: yes, we're not proposing adopting Mozilla's use
10:51 bernie: we're proposing that ", with Sugar" or ", sweetened by Sugar" (e.g.) would be preapproved uses -- you don't have to ask us.
10:51 karenesq so saying X with Y is much closer to nominative use than some of the formulations you are talking about, but if Y is a modified version, then the answer would likely to be that there's no permission to do that
10:51 walterbender well, I think we need to start working on some guidelines where we articulate where our comfort level lies so there is some degree of predictability in the decision-making process
10:51 cjb (but that other uses wouldn't, you'd have to ask)
10:51 SeanDaly our key problem is that desktop marketing Gnome, KDE is not good (worse than distros even I'm afraid)
10:52 karenesq I think in this instance, you'd have to really decide what you're comfortable with, what you think is right, and we'll draft the policy around it
10:52 walterbender for those modified cases...
10:52 cjb SeanDaly: I think this is a consequence of people not caring much about which desktop they're running :)
10:52 SeanDaly whereas, Sugar can actually pull along the distros
10:53 karenesq if you're talking about modified cases only, then we had this idea about "substantially unmodified"
10:53 walterbender we need to give people guidance re where/how they can make modifications and still expect to get approval
10:53 or not
10:53 SeanDaly karenesq: modified is at two levels: technical, and marketing
10:53 walterbender karenesq: well what does substantially mean?
10:53 karenesq SeanDaly: but I'm actually talking about the product itself, so it's really technical
10:53 walterbender karenesq: is adding one non-free driver substantial?
10:53 flash?
10:54 karenesq we called substantially unmodified as: built from the source code provided by the Sugar Labs project, possibly with minor modifications including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches
10:54 SeanDaly walterbender: i was about to cite that example
10:54 cjb walterbender: I think we can't regulate people adding software that isn't ours
10:54 satellit sugar with ppa install of sugar?
10:54 cjb walterbender: if someone installs Flash, we don't have a claim over whether that's okay, because we didn't write Flash
10:54 but maybe I'm wrong
10:54 karenesq we can specifically say that adding of nonfree drivers is a substantial modification
10:54 walterbender cjb: not control them doing it... control them calling the result Sugar
10:55 karenesq we did say that changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution was considered substantially UNmodified
10:55 walterbender karenesq: this is exactly the kind of guidance I think we need to spell out in advance as much as possible
10:56 so people can then know to ask for a waiver or know not to expect to be able to use the Sugar branding
10:56 but now we are back to the remix question.
10:56 SeanDaly karenesq: nonfree drivers an issue too; for example, to boot a netbook successfully, tempting to include nonfree wifi chip drivers, but that's a no-no
10:56 walterbender once there is a "substantial change" at what point is it no longer even a remix?
10:57 karenesq walterbender: agreed, these are largely policy decisions for you all to make in conjunction with your marketing strategy. we can write up the policy to reflect it. I doubt we'll be taking a restrictive route that gets us too close to restricting that nominative use
10:57 walterbender satellit: Am I correct in that openSUSE has a *very* strick remix policy?
10:57 SeanDaly walterbender: when I referred to "certain other conditions", I meant that we can elect to withdraw use of remix logo
10:57 for a project
10:57 bernie karenesq: question: we registered the trademark "Sugar Labs" and we say that we make no claim on "Labs" alone. Does it mean that we have some rights on "Sugar" alone, at least when it refers to educational software?
10:57 walterbender SeanDaly: but I think the vagueness is a problem...
10:57 karenesq SeanDaly: yeah, I get that, but it sounds like we've got the opportunity to make up terminology and labels to describe those situations, no?
10:58 SeanDaly karenesq: yes, sure
10:58 walterbender SeanDaly:  I think we want to be as clear as possible from the get-go.
10:58 SeanDaly walterbender: need to be brief while typing, but i can draft a policy to look at & discuss
10:58 with examples
10:58 walterbender http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/F[…]oaS_customization is a nice example of where one might make mods to SoaS
10:58 SeanDaly totally agree it needs to be clear
10:59 karenesq bernie: that's a good question, and while we don't have a trademark on Sugar alone, use of the word sugar in conjunction with a similar product would infringe on the Sugar Labs mark
10:59 walterbender we could work on something similar
10:59 for marketing
10:59 cjb (interesting side-conversation happening in #sugar)
10:59 in short, sdziallas is displeased that we apparently intend to register the name his project uses as a trademark without consulting him.
11:00 SeanDaly bernie: one of marketing challenges is to raise awareness in context where "sugar" not usually associated with computers
11:00 walterbender cjb: I wish that the conversation were all in one channel :(
11:00 SeanDaly so, our marketing is on "sugar labs" and "sugar on a stick"
11:00 CanoeBerry Thanks everyone for thinking like crazy this morning! Time check: 11am
11:01 cjb walterbender: I think he didn't want to interrupt
11:01 walterbender cjb: IMHO, by choosing the Sugar xyz, it became our issue, whether or not we want to be a distro
11:01 SeanDaly just joined #sugar now
11:02 mchua There's been quite a backchannel on #sugar.
11:02 cjb CanoeBerry: I'd like to keep going
11:02 anyone have to leave?
11:02 walterbender CanoeBerry: if you have to go, we can end the formal meeting and just continue discussing
11:02 SeanDaly I have a few minutes
11:02 walterbender actually, I think we made a lot of progress on the TM issue.
11:02 bernie karenesq: does that mean that Sugar on a Stick is implicitly a trademark of Sugar Labs, as "Bottle of Coke" would be a trademark of Coca Cola?
11:02 cjb CanoeBerry: you haven't said much :) any thoughts on this?
11:02 walterbender with implications to Q3
11:03 mchua seconds idea of ending formal meeting now, and continuing discussion.
11:03 karenesq bernie: I think that use of SoaS could very well infringe on the Sugar Labs mark, yes
11:03 bernie karenesq: thanks.
11:03 SeanDaly walterbender: my goal would be to have a policy clear enough to let people create while allowing us to protect and nurture the Sugar brand
11:04 CanoeBerry I am not a lawyer and don't want to be one today, but will read carefully before voting on Christmas Day in exactly a week!
11:04 mchua I do think we're making good forward progress on the TM issue, I know I'm starting to see other perspectives on the question more clearly, fwiw.
11:04 SeanDaly: +1, same goal here.
11:04 cjb would we like to talk about the sdziallas question, of why we're registering a trademark on a community project's name?
11:04 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: hola not sure I will be able to vote anything on Christmas Day
11:05 cjb the answer of "it has Sugar in it" isn't sufficient, IMO -- there's an infinite number of names that have Sugar in.
11:05 mchua cjb: is that a discussion that should lead to an in-meeting motion, or a discussion we should talk about outside the meeting so it's clear what motions should come up?
11:05 cjb yes, we should not meet on Christmas Day.
11:05 mchua: outside the meeting is fine with me
11:05 walterbender so we'll end now and continue discussion and not meet on the 25th
11:05 or the 1st
11:05 CanoeBerry Are we meeting Fri Jan 1?
11:05 SeanDaly cjb: without trademark, no brand building possible
11:05 cjb how about meeting on a non-Friday, ten
11:05 walterbender can we meet on the 24th perhaps? so as not to lose momentum?
11:06 cjb SeanDaly: so we're doing it for his project's benefit?
11:06 mchua proposes moving next 2 weeks meeting time on Wednesday
11:06 walterbender mchua: works for me
11:06 SeanDaly walterbender: possible for me i think, I will be in the mountains
11:06 wed better for me
11:06 mchua walterbender: do we need to make a motion?
11:06 CanoeBerry Wednedays same time are fine.
11:06 cjb so Wed 23 and Wed 30, same time?
11:06 walterbender SeanDaly: obviously your presence is important for this topic
11:06 mchua It looks like we'd have quorum at least.
11:06 walterbender cjb:  +1
11:06 SeanDaly weds ok for me in principle
11:06 mchua though I would want everyone for this topic, yeah.
11:07 walterbender OK. Let's end this formal meeting and keep talking for those who can stick around
11:07 CanoeBerry Aside: Wedn Evening Dec 30 in Boston we will have a presentor talking about her African deployment (Sao Tome)
11:07 cjb ok.  back to the question I just asked?
11:07 walterbender just want to let everyone know about http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]ance/Transactions
11:08 CanoeBerry: can you send me details for the digest?
11:08 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: I've seen that girl's blog she seems amazing
11:08 CanoeBerry walterbender: yes
11:08 walterbender cjb: not sure which question. can you repeat it?
11:08 but first...
11:09 #endmeeting

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.