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

#sugar-meeting, 2009-12-23

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
10:02 walterbender #TOPIC our licensing policy
10:03 We got a good start on a discussion last week.
10:04 I think we need to come to terms with a few basic principles
10:04 ^terms^consensus
10:04 namely, to what extent do we want to control what is a "remix" vs what can be called Sugar
10:05 I think we are reasonably clear at this point in our trademark policy as far as giving guidance to potential collaborators
10:06 tomeu walterbender: hmm, you mean that the remixes policy is already in our trademark policy?
10:06 walterbender and I think we concluded last time that we would routinely ask for SLOB approval of all uses of our name.
10:06 tomeu: yes.
10:06 cjb walterbender: not quite
10:06 walterbender: I agree Sean proposed that
10:07 but Bernie was concerned that it's too strict, and liked the idea of having an always-acceptable use of the Sugar name
10:07 walterbender tomeu: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]tially_unmodified
10:07 cjb which we talked about as "Foo, sweetened by Sugar"
10:07 tomeu ah
10:07 that's what apache allows, "powered by apache"
10:08 walterbender cjb: I think that anything that falls within the "substantially unmodified" category is "always acceptable"
10:08 cjb hm, I think we're talking about different things though
10:08 walterbender cjb: and I think we need to come up with some scenarios that help people better understand what we mean...
10:08 cjb I don't think "Foo, sweetened by Sugar" should have to be substantially unmodified
10:09 walterbender cjb: OK. Let's discuss it.
10:09 cjb walterbender: yeah, definitely
10:09 bemasc why doesn't Gnome have this problem?
10:09 walterbender cjb: can you give me an example?
10:09 bemasc: not clear that they don't
10:09 cjb walterbender: OLPC's one example, I suppose :)
10:10 walterbender cjb: Is OLPC substantially modifying Sugar?
10:10 cjb I don't think so; not at the moment.
10:10 walterbender would love OLPC to ack that they are "sweetened by Sugar" :)
10:10 tomeu possible example: OLPC decides to ship sugar 0.86 but with some modifications to the file layout of its datastore
10:11 because that layout is faster for olpc's nand
10:11 that would be substantially modified, right?
10:11 bemasc Gnome doesn't even suggest that people ship Gnome unmodified
10:11 walterbender tomeu: that seems to be OK--changes required for compatibility...
10:11 tomeu bemasc: what about gnome mobile?
10:11 cjb gnome mobile doesn't exist
10:12 it was just a press release.
10:12 tomeu cjb: well, gnome's board uses to talk about it quite regularly
10:12 walterbender bemasc: Gnome aside, we have certain obligations as a member of the SFC
10:12 tomeu bemasc: the problem with gnome may be that they haven't worried much about their own brand
10:12 walterbender bemasc: obligations to free software
10:12 bemasc tomeu: and yet they have the strongest brand of any Free desktop.
10:13 cjb tomeu: maybe they think that their brand will be best furthered by having it be used liberally
10:14 walterbender cjb: I for one want a similar policy for Sugar--spread it liberally--but I want to balance that with a strong sense of what is true to our core values...
10:14 bemasc walterbender: then it sounds like what you want is policy for what Sugar Labs will and will not do.
10:14 tomeu bemasc: well, do the others care?
10:14 bemasc That's different from policy for what everyone else can do.
10:15 walterbender bemasc: and we allow others to do what they want... but where is the line we draw as to whether they call what they do Sugar or Sugar "remix"?
10:15 tomeu cjb: may be better to directly ask their marketing team instead of guessing
10:15 cjb tomeu: good idea!
10:15 tomeu " Do not combine or use a GNOME Trademark with your company's product or service name or any other term unless you have written permission to do so. Use of GNOME Trademarks in that sort of way would NOT be a fair use."
10:15 from http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/
10:16 bernie oh? did we move the slobs meeting today? I hadn't noticed
10:16 walterbender but back to the question of where does our current policy as defined in the TM guidelines get in the way?
10:16 tomeu bernie: walterbender forgot to send you direct email ;)
10:16 from my POV the only interesting point to discuss is if we leave a remix mechanism with no or few restrictions
10:17 gnome seems to not allow it
10:17 apache seems to have a very liberal one with "powered by apache"
10:17 and fedora seems to have a more restricted one
10:17 cjb tomeu: but it's weird, because every distro's release notes will say things like "includes GNOME"
10:17 walterbender tomeu: fedora has a liberal one compared to SUSE
10:17 cjb so I think that perhaps it's just not possible to stop from saying "includes <noun>TM"
10:17 tomeu cjb: yeah, the gnome community is not too consistent
10:18 walterbender cjb: that is back to the includes (sweetened by) vs a Sugar product which is a remix
10:18 cjb walterbender: gotcha
10:18 tomeu walterbender: ok, I would like to have both
10:18 cjb so I suspect we are mostly in agreement that includes/sweetened by should be unprotected?
10:18 tomeu so that OLPC can say that their products include sugar (if they wish to)
10:19 cjb i.e. anyone can say that without our permission
10:19 tomeu sorry, I mean to say that their computers run sugar
10:19 bernie Sorry, I must leave soon. but you could put on record that I'm in favor of a liberal trademark licensing policy, similar to the Linux Foundation: http://www.linuxmark.org/
10:19 walterbender cjb: I think there is no problem mentioning the fact that Sugar or Gnome is included... without any approval... but morphed into something new... and co-branded... that is the issue.
10:19 cjb but where we need to discuss more is the remix policy for modifying Sugar itself
10:19 tomeu and anybody else could say that they include sugar regardless of how modified it is
10:19 cjb bernie: ok, thanks
10:19 we should perhaps start an iaep@ thread about this
10:19 satellit use of different modified KS file to make sugar?
10:19 walterbender ciao bernardo... have fun with your sister :)
10:20 bernie cjb: I think it would make sense to check with the community
10:20 cjb satellit: that's not modifying sugar, so it is unaffected
10:20 tomeu yes, I think we shouldn't spend too much of our time on this, at least until we start receiving requests for co-branding
10:20 bernie walterbender: thanks and happy holidays
10:20 satellit even if includes non free apps?
10:20 cjb of course
10:20 walterbender tomeu: we have some outstanding requests and one that we turned down.
10:21 cjb we cannot stop someone from a creating a distro that includes Sugar and non-free apps
10:21 that's simply not covered by copyright or trademark laws
10:21 walterbender tomeu: an anything goes policy has implications for support as well...
10:21 tomeu walterbender: for cobranding or for remixes?
10:21 cjb they should not say that the result is simply "Sugar", since it's clearly "SomethingElse, with Sugar"
10:21 walterbender tomeu: cobranding
10:22 cjb: I agree....
10:22 bemasc ok, I think Gnome probably has the right idea, though it's ugly.
10:22 tomeu walterbender: and do we need to cover all the cobranding situations in the policy?
10:22 walterbender cjb: anyone can unilaterally say "with Sugar", but to call it Sugar, we need to "bless" it.
10:22 bemasc write up a strict yet of usage guidelines that nobody will follow, and then don't enforce them unless someone is doing something obviously wrong
10:23 cjb walterbender: got it
10:23 tomeu or it's enough to say that each case needs approval from SLs?
10:23 cjb bemasc: haha
10:23 tomeu bemasc: but they don't lose the right to defend the trademark if they don't defend it?
10:23 walterbender tomeu: I think the point that Bernie (and CJB) had raised earlier is that we want to allow "with Sugar" without the need for approval.
10:24 cjb yeah
10:24 so:
10:24 "Sugar" = strongly protected
10:24 "Foo Sugar" = also protected
10:24 walterbender bemasc: I agree with Tomeu; I don't think we can do that.
10:24 bemasc tomeu: only if it becomes a generic term.
10:24 cjb "Foo, <together with> Sugar" = unprotected
10:24 satellit use of other fruit names? without permission?
10:24 cjb satellit: of course
10:24 tomeu bemasc: that's not what I have heard
10:25 walterbender satellit: I am not sure I follow
10:25 cjb satellit: give an example?
10:25 satellit suppose someone makes a rasberry with sugar distro
10:25 tomeu cjb: by protected you mean that an explicit license needs to be asked?
10:25 cjb tomeu: that's great
10:25 oops
10:25 tomeu: that's right
10:26 tomeu ok, so I like what cjb proposes
10:26 we can make it into a motion, even if only to start some discussion on the ml
10:26 cjb we could even say e.g. "your own noun must come before 'Sugar', not after it"
10:27 GNOME does something similar here:
10:27 walterbender the only part of what cjb proposes that is not already explicit in our TM gudelines is the "Foo, <together with> Sugar" bit
10:27 cjb > Your name and/or logo should appear more prominently than the GNOME mark on all printed materials related to the publication.
10:27 tomeu walterbender: yeah, would like to know if sean agrees with it
10:27 walterbender we'd have to ask our lawyers to make sure the language we chose is appropriate and enforceable.
10:27 tomeu yeah
10:28 walterbender cjb: the latter is also in accordance with Fedora. I think it is important
10:28 tomeu but maybe is worth it if more people can make use of the sugar brand in ways that helps the community
10:29 walterbender so we could codify this into a motion to modify the TM guidelines, vet it on the list and with the marketing team and SFC and vote on it next time?
10:30 cjb ok
10:30 walterbender the two bits being "Foo, <together with> Sugar"  and Your name and/or logo should appear more prominently...
10:31 probably two separate motions, actually
10:32 cjb MOTION: "When creating a product, "Sugar" is a trademark-protected phrase that requires permission from SLOBS.  The exception is the phrasing "Foo, <together with> Sugar", which is unprotected.  Note that "Foo" must be being used more prominently than "Sugar" in advertising materials in this case."
10:32 tomeu the second should come from the marketing team?
10:32 cjb yeah, I think that the name/logo thing could be handled separately
10:32 walterbender tomeu: we can second the motion and that opens it up for discussion...
10:33 cjb it would be good to include an example
10:33 MOTION: "When creating a product, "Sugar" is a trademark-protected phrase that requires permission from SLOBS.  The exception is the phrasing "Foo, <together with> Sugar", which is unprotected.  An example of unprotected use:  "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar".
10:34 tomeu ok, I second that
10:34 cjb how about we just go with that for now?
10:34 walterbender cjb: presumably a Clause 2.d.
10:34 cjb walterbender: sorry, don't follow
10:35 walterbender cjb: we want this to fit within the context of http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]ernance/Trademark
10:35 cjb oh, right
10:35 yup!
10:35 bemasc I think you should just fix 2.a
10:35 cjb it's actually already related to 2.b
10:35 bemasc "based on Sugar Labs"... doesn't even make sense.
10:36 cjb we're just explaining how an acceptable way of 2.b might go
10:36 bemasc Sugar Labs is never a component of a software offering
10:36 walterbender bemasc: well, as an expansion of 2 b, yes.
10:36 bemasc: say what?
10:36 cjb I agree with bemasc about s/Sugar Labs/Sugar/g in the second para of 2.a
10:36 bemasc Sugar Labs is an organization.  It is not software.
10:37 The whole trademark policy doesn't parse.
10:37 cjb > you may refer to your product as "derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs."
10:37 yeah, it is more than just 2.a.
10:37 walterbender bemasc, cjb: we cover this in Section 5, but I agree, it is not clear.
10:37 bemasc It looks like the whole trademark policy was just a string interpolation
10:38 based on organizations whose name is the same as the name of their product
10:39 walterbender bemasc: we have protected SL and Sugar in the context of learning s'ware.
10:39 cjb I think there are two choices:
10:39 either change "Sugar Labs" to "Sugar" in most places, or
10:39 change "Sugar Labs" to "the Sugar Labs marks" in most places
10:40 walterbender can we bifurcate the discussion? (1) get the Sugar vs Sugar Labs wording sorted out and (2) get the sweetened by language in?
10:41 I'd like to finish discussing #2 and then perhaps a "committee" can take the rewording off line and report back next week?
10:42 If the wording were correct, I think cjb's new language would make sense as an expansion of 2.b.
10:42 cjb ok.  I propose adding "For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or another "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" without permission" construction would be unrestricted" to 2.b
10:42 oops
10:42 ok.  I propose adding "For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or another "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" construction would be unrestricted" to 2.b
10:42 bemasc cjb: I think 2.a makes more sense...
10:43 cjb bemasc: not quiet
10:43 bemasc It already contains a listing of pre-approved language for noting things based on Sugar Labs software
10:43 all you seem to be doing is adding one more
10:43 walterbender ^quiet^quite?
10:43 cjb 2.a talks about releasing something that started out being Sugar and is now something else
10:43 2.b talks about products that are not Sugar, but contain it
10:43 and I think we're interested in 2.b
10:43 bemasc ok
10:44 walterbender And I think we want to unleash 2.b. without requiring people to as permission...
10:44 cjb well, we're unleashing 2.a too
10:44 since it's under a "this is what you can do without permission" section
10:44 but that requires us to define "substantially unmodified"
10:45 walterbender cjb: separate topic...
10:45 cjb yup
10:45 walterbender cjb: Can you state  your new language as a motion?
10:45 cjb ok
10:46 MOTION: Add "For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or other "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" language would be a use that does not require permission" to trademark policy section 2.b
10:47 walterbender second
10:47 cjb ok.  vote postponed for a week or two.
10:47 walterbender #action bring the discussion to IAEP and marketing and then vote at the next meeting
10:48 Great. It may seem trivial, but I think this will help.
10:48 Can we move on to the "substantially unmodified" topic briefly?
10:48 cjb ok
10:48 walterbender #topic "substantially unmodified"
10:49 I think we have a working definition, but we need to flesh it out with more examples
10:49 actually, examples of modifications that would need approval.
10:50 cjb ok
10:50 walterbender I also think, from the technical perspective, as suggested by Carlo, we need a better definition of where and how to make modifications--substantial or not.
10:51 but I don't think a motion is required here so much as some community work
10:51 satellit zyx-liveinstaller in distro ok but VMPlayer?
10:51 non free
10:52 walterbender satellit: that would suggest a "derived from" name
10:52 cjb I don't see how we could control what other software people put in distros containing Sugar
10:52 tomeu hmm, do we care about distro issues?
10:52 cjb of course they can't say that the result is merely "Sugar", but they already can't do that
10:52 walterbender cjb: if Sugar is included, it is a sweetened by...
10:52 cjb walterbender: yes
10:53 walterbender cjb: but in the case of SoaS, it would have to be a derived from if it adds non-FOSS...
10:53 satellit virtual box ose vs sun virtual box?
10:53 walterbender at least, that is my interpretation
10:53 cjb Sugar on a Stick would require permission anyway
10:53 walterbender satellit: I am not familiar enough with the details, but it would require a discussion and permission...
10:54 satellit but is a live Cd .iso as distributed
10:54 cjb so, I don't think we're actually adding anything to the trademark policy here
10:54 if people were using 2.b, we can't regulate what they package
10:54 if people were using 2.a, they were already depending on an arbitrary decision from us
10:54 uh, that's not quite right
10:54 walterbender as an aside would love to see all the source and build tools distributed on a helper CD
10:55 cjb if people were using 2.b, we can't regulate what they package
10:55 walterbender cjb: I completely agree
10:55 cjb if people were using Sugar marks without invoking section 2, they were already asking for permission
10:55 ok
10:56 so we're discussing what criteria we will take into account when deciding whether to give them permission?
10:56 walterbender cjb: yes... clarifying "substantially modified"
10:57 cjb no, I disagree
10:57 I'll try and be more clear about why
10:58 walterbender cjb: what criteria by which they decide it they need to ask permission
10:58 cjb it just doesn't really make sense for the SoaS case
10:59 if someone is deriving from SoaS
10:59 walterbender as to whether or not we give permission, that is not really covered anywhere
10:59 cjb they may not use Sugar in their name anyway
10:59 they may use ".. derived from Sugar"
10:59 but then it doesn't matter whether they have FOSS; that's unprotected
11:00 walterbender cjb: if they don't want to say derived from, then it is a matter of 2.a.
11:01 cjb I think of 2.a as talking about modifications to the Sugar codebase, I guess
11:01 satellit what about a iso of SOAS with an automatic search for usb and install program on startup? is that still soas?
11:01 walterbender cjb: I think it is any modification of any of the products referred to in Section 5
11:02 cjb walterbender: 5.a is out of date as of last week, though
11:02 because we asked people to refrain from using "Sugar on a Stick" at all
11:02 I think this is why I'm being confused
11:03 walterbender satellit: in my judgment, that would be an OK change because it is minor and distro-related
11:03 cjb: yeah. that is confusing
11:04 everyone--it is 11 EST. We should wrap up.
11:04 cjb yup
11:04 was there anything else on the agenda?
11:04 walterbender Bernie's infrastructure discussion
11:05 cjb ok; I think the idea is that he has free hosting now and wants to spend $3000 on a machine
11:05 I'd like to get a better idea of our finances
11:05 walterbender cjb: I don't want to lose your point about prominence of the mark... new language for Section 4.
11:05 cjb the last ledger from Bradley was pretty confusing to me
11:05 walterbender cjb: I am acting finance director :(
11:05 I'm trying to get up to speed
11:05 cjb thanks for doing that
11:06 do you think you could try and come up with a "this is how much money is in our account and spendable on new items" number for next week?
11:06 walterbender cjb: maybe I can convince Chuck to volunteer for this role :)
11:06 cjb :)
11:06 walterbender cjb: I'll try.
11:07 well every, happy holidays... try to get some R&R in with family.
11:07 to be continued.
11:07 #endmeeting

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.