| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 10:02 | dirakx | walterbender: it's ok to me. |
| 10:03 | cjb | I'm here (but sleepy) |
| 10:03 | walterbender | We have a lot to cover, but I want to begin by hopefully wrapping up the TM discussion |
| 10:03 | #Topic TM guidelines | |
| 10:03 | SeanDaly | hi cjb... I'm "droopy" |
| 10:03 | walterbender | I tried to incorporate our discussions into a new draft |
| 10:03 | See http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy | |
| 10:04 | bold is new text; <strike> is deleted text | |
| 10:04 | mchua | adding a few notes to that right now. |
| 10:04 | SeanDaly | walterbender: do keep in mind Karen should sign off on that before "official" policy published |
| 10:04 | walterbender | SeanDaly: yes. But we need to clarify our intentions |
| 10:05 | shall we walk through the proposed changes? | |
| 10:05 | SeanDaly | I have a comment first if I may |
| 10:05 | mchua | done with comments in page |
| 10:05 | SeanDaly | my idea was that trademark be licensed without contact, but with "safety valve" conditions |
| 10:06 | in other words, that the license be revocable if certain conditions were met (or not) | |
| 10:06 | cjb | > you may refer to your product as "derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs." |
| 10:06 | walterbender | SeanDaly: we tried to do that in 2.b. |
| 10:06 | SeanDaly | for example, if SL logo not secondary enough in marketing materials |
| 10:06 | cjb | this one needs the company/software rewording too |
| 10:07 | walterbender | SeanDaly: we should add a link to examples in 4.a. |
| 10:07 | SeanDaly | a policy is always best explained with examples, seems to me the fedora tm page did that too |
| 10:07 | walterbender | cjb: this one referring to the entire document or just 2.b. |
| 10:08 | but let's do this from the top. | |
| 10:08 | Mel added some text re "approved licenses" in 2.a. | |
| 10:08 | cjb | walterbender: I think only 2.a still has the problem |
| 10:08 | SeanDaly | also... i'm sorry, what with travelling didn't do my post of candidate phrases for sugar labels |
| 10:09 | mchua | (it wouldn't actually have all the link text - I just wanted to make sure the Licenses page that clause would link to would include that info.) |
| 10:09 | walterbender | mchua: gotcha |
| 10:09 | SeanDaly | s/that mark is associated/that mark is currently associated/ |
| 10:10 | walterbender | SeanDaly: noted. |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | s/Sugar on a Stick Strawberry/Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry (this was PR nomenclature) |
| 10:11 | walterbender | cjb: I am not sure it is broken. See the definition of Marks at the top of the document. |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | in response to Mel's question in 2a, we are referring to the Sebastian project |
| 10:11 | mchua | cjb: 2a: s/Sugar Labs software/software produced by Sugar Labs - would that remove the confusion? |
| 10:12 | cjb | mchua: no, it's the later phrases |
| 10:12 | mchua | SeanDaly: is there any language we can use to clarify that? |
| 10:12 | cjb | > derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs." |
| 10:12 | I don't think these make sense | |
| 10:12 | because nothing is "derived from Sugar Labs" | |
| 10:12 | unless it is a very similar nonprofit ;-) | |
| 10:12 | walterbender | cjb: a local lab :) |
| 10:13 | cjb | rewording: |
| 10:13 | walterbender | cjb: I missed that one. You are right. Let me try something... |
| 10:13 | cjb | > you may refer to your product as "derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs." |
| 10:13 | oops | |
| 10:13 | try again | |
| 10:13 | walterbender | cjb: a subtle change :) |
| 10:13 | cjb | > you may refer to your product as "derived from", "based on", or "a derivative" of a Sugar Labs mark |
| 10:14 | how's that? | |
| 10:14 | SeanDaly | mchua: how about this? s/that mark is associated with the Fedora GNU/Linux distribution/that mark is associated with the Sugar Labs liveUSB project currently based on the Fedora GNU/Linux distribution |
| 10:14 | walterbender | cjb: that sounds great... |
| 10:14 | cjb | ok, will save it |
| 10:14 | mchua | cjb rewording++ |
| 10:14 | SeanDaly: with a link to the SoaS wiki page, I think that pretty much clears it up, should I put it in when cjb's edit saves? | |
| 10:15 | SeanDaly | walterbender, cjb: the idea is to build up a specific logo phrase |
| 10:15 | not generic "derived from" stuff | |
| 10:15 | cjb | mchua: saved |
| 10:15 | walterbender | SeanDaly: when we have such a phase... |
| 10:15 | SeanDaly | the logo/phrase not chosen yet (marketing issue) I have 15-20 candidates |
| 10:15 | was travelling didn't take time to enumerate them | |
| 10:16 | walterbender | SeanDaly: in the meanwhile, we need a placeholder. |
| 10:16 | SeanDaly | loosely based on Intel's "Intel inside" program |
| 10:16 | walterbender | SeanDaly: which brings us to 2.b. |
| 10:17 | which is the subject of the motion on the table | |
| 10:17 | SeanDaly | please contact us -> there should be a mail address there |
| 10:17 | walterbender | we have a contact address at the bottom of the document |
| 10:18 | mchua | SeanDaly: 5a reworded - I actually took out the "Fedora" part because I wonder if that makes SL seem less distro-neutral (but can easily add it back in if it's important) |
| 10:18 | SeanDaly | mchua: i like thank you |
| 10:18 | cjb | looks good |
| 10:18 | walterbender | guys, can we finish up the discussion of 2.b.? |
| 10:19 | cjb | walterbender: what's left? |
| 10:19 | SeanDaly | "please conatct us at the address below" |
| 10:19 | has to be absolutely crystal clear how contact is done | |
| 10:19 | walterbender | cjb: just that we had an open motion on that specific paragraph |
| 10:19 | SeanDaly: +1 | |
| 10:19 | SeanDaly | otherwise somebody sends a random mail offlist |
| 10:20 | cjb | walterbender: oh, yeah |
| 10:20 | walterbender | maybe we can ditch the motion and make a new one to cover all of these changes? |
| 10:20 | mchua | Do we want to add specific examples of non-appropriate use for 2.b? |
| 10:20 | cjb | mchua: that sounds reasonable |
| 10:21 | mchua | so, a few examples that may or may not be appropriate... |
| 10:21 | * Fooproject with Sugar | |
| 10:21 | * Fooproject, Sugarized (do we allow modified versions of the word "Sugar," including "verbifications"? Fedora doesn't; see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]_Usage_Guidelines) | |
| 10:21 | * Sugar Fooproject | |
| 10:21 | * Sugar's Fooproject | |
| 10:21 | * Fooproject's Sugar | |
| 10:21 | SeanDaly | again, this is just placeholder until specific logo+phrase chosen |
| 10:21 | cjb | I'm okay with saying that all of those require permission |
| 10:22 | SeanDaly | the idea being that *only* logo&phrase be used |
| 10:22 | mchua | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]_Usage_Guidelines has a lot of detailed examples, I don't know if we want to go quite that far, or if anyone (SeanDaly?) has specific examples they'd like to use for "don't do this" counterexamples. |
| 10:23 | SeanDaly | what I want is a logo program, no permission necessary, but conditions attached which allow us to revoke logo if necessary |
| 10:23 | the logo+phrase aren't ready yet, but the placeholder words in the motion work for me | |
| 10:23 | cjb | SeanDaly: so, uh |
| 10:24 | walterbender | SeanDaly: I think that is what we already have... |
| 10:24 | cjb | a logo program only works when a use is accompanied by graphics |
| 10:24 | but most uses might not be | |
| 10:24 | SeanDaly | cjb: cf. the word "logo" ;-) |
| 10:24 | cjb | what happens with them, in your new model? |
| 10:24 | mchua | reading http://www.intel.com/sites/sit[…]n_US/tradmarx.htm (since SeanDaly brought that up as an example) to see if there's a difference in the wording that we can copypaste |
| 10:24 | SeanDaly | cjb: a website with no graphics ?? |
| 10:25 | cjb | SeanDaly: not every use will have a website |
| 10:25 | SeanDaly | cjb: this not new, floated idea 2 meetings ago |
| 10:25 | cjb: a Sugar distro with no website? | |
| 10:26 | cjb | http://en.opensuse.org/Sugar#Sugar_on_a_Stick |
| 10:26 | obviously not the greatest example | |
| 10:26 | walterbender | SeanDaly: I think we need two things: (1) a separate from this document list of examples and (2) a separate discussion on the phrasing you want for derivitive works. |
| 10:27 | SeanDaly: right now our TM is on the words, not the artwork, but since the artwork uses the words, it is covered | |
| 10:27 | mchua | SeanDaly: for (1), is http://www.intel.com/intel/legal/tmnouns2.htm the sort of thing you're looking for, and for (2) is http://www.intel.com/intel/leg[…]musage2.htm#using the sort of thing you're looking for? |
| 10:27 | SeanDaly | mchua: I can't digest those in realtime :-( |
| 10:28 | mchua | SeanDaly: no worries, they'll be in the logs now in case they're useful for reference :) |
| 10:28 | cjb | SeanDaly: we can table my question; I guess what I'm saying is, I doubt a logo program can be as flexible as the rules we're coming up with now, so I think those rules are still useful |
| 10:28 | walterbender | but can we get back the specifics of the TM guidelines document itself? |
| 10:28 | mchua | SeanDaly: (totally feel free to ignore them - they're basically nicely-written corporate sounding boilerplate) |
| 10:28 | cjb | but it's just an intuition |
| 10:28 | SeanDaly | walterbender: 1) yes a FAQ 2) the phrasing in the draft motion will do until logo+phrase are ready |
| 10:28 | mchua | walterbender++ - were we on 3? |
| 10:28 | walterbender | there are still a few sections we need to discuss |
| 10:28 | mchua | if we're moving on from 2b, anyway |
| 10:29 | walterbender | section 3 just has some cosmetic changes |
| 10:29 | section 4a--comments? | |
| 10:29 | mchua | 4a needs examples too |
| 10:30 | ...actually, everything in 4 could benefit from examples. | |
| 10:30 | walterbender | mchua: agreed. |
| 10:30 | but is the spirit correct? | |
| 10:31 | mchua | thinks so. |
| 10:31 | walterbender | shall we look at 5.a.? this is a substantial change |
| 10:31 | SeanDaly | 4a: |
| 10:32 | s/should be secondary in advertising materials/should be secondary in graphic materials (advertising, marketing, website) | |
| 10:33 | walterbender | SeanDaly: I think it shoud be more general--to include non-graphical uses too |
| 10:33 | SeanDaly | about 5, it's not really a question of choosing to register, it's a question of the strength of our claim |
| 10:33 | walterbender: sure, but I'm thinking in terms of logo program | |
| 10:34 | walterbender | SeanDaly: this is our TM guidelines, which sits above our logo program |
| 10:34 | cjb | I think that walterbender's wording is okay, because I think that marketing/graphics/website are all "advertising materials" |
| 10:34 | SeanDaly | cjb: you and I think that, but for anyone not like-minded, that's a "loophole" |
| 10:35 | the whole concept of legal language is to limit wriggle room | |
| 10:35 | as Karen said, once we are clear on what we want, she can approve/draft language | |
| 10:36 | walterbender | SeanDaly: how about if we say: in advertising materials, including... |
| 10:36 | SeanDaly | walterbender: +1 |
| 10:37 | about 5a, why do we even need this phrase? "Different versions of Sugar on a Stick are indicated by a qualifying phrase, e.g., the "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" Release is based on Fedora 11." | |
| 10:37 | mchua | SeanDaly: I was about to ask the same thing. |
| 10:38 | current wording of 5a without the revision markers, for reference: | |
| 10:38 | You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key. However, you are required to distinguish it from "Sugar on a Stick" other dist that mark is associated with a specific Sugar Labs liveUSB project <link>. Different versions of Sugar on a Stick are indicated by a qualifying phrase, e.g., the "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" Release is based on Fedora 11. | |
| 10:38 | SeanDaly | it was only necessary under previos "regime" ;-) |
| 10:38 | mchua | whoops. |
| 10:38 | You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key. However, you are required to distinguish it from "Sugar on a Stick" - that mark is associated with a specific Sugar Labs liveUSB project <link>. Different versions of Sugar on a Stick are indicated by a qualifying phrase, e.g., the "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" Release is based on Fedora 11. | |
| 10:38 | there we go. | |
| 10:38 | cjb | that's the smae again |
| 10:38 | oh, not quite the same | |
| 10:38 | can we just remove everything after <link>? | |
| 10:39 | SeanDaly | dismaed |
| 10:39 | cjb: +1 | |
| 10:39 | walterbender | cjb: +1 |
| 10:40 | mchua | +1 |
| 10:40 | walterbender | SeanDaly: what are you dismayed about? |
| 10:40 | SeanDaly | for the record, I regret sdz not here since he had a hand in drafting doc and is a stakeholder in SoaS |
| 10:41 | walterbender | SeanDaly: yes, but what is bothering you about the current wording? |
| 10:42 | mchua | sdziallas: ping |
| 10:42 | SeanDaly | text following the link superfluous to me |
| 10:42 | sdziallas | hullos. |
| 10:42 | SeanDaly | hi sdziallas |
| 10:42 | sdziallas | waves to SeanDaly and others |
| 10:42 | mchua | sdziallas: how do you like the rewording on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy section 5a? |
| 10:42 | walterbender | SeanDaly: I don't understand. You think it is or is not superfluous? |
| 10:42 | SeanDaly | you're like genie in bottle - I make a wish, mchua gets you to appear :D |
| 10:43 | sdziallas | grins ;) |
| 10:43 | mchua has the magic lamp, I guess. | |
| 10:43 | SeanDaly | walterbender: sorry if not clear - I'd like to take out: 'Different versions of Sugar on a Stick are indicated by a qualifying phrase, e.g., the "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" Release is based on Fedora 11' |
| 10:43 | walterbender | SeanDaly: then we all agree |
| 10:43 | SeanDaly | yes quite |
| 10:43 | sdziallas | does, too. |
| 10:44 | mchua | sdziallas: the current proposed wording is "You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key. However, you are required to distinguish it from "Sugar on a Stick" - that mark is associated with a specific Sugar Labs liveUSB project <link to SoaS page>." for reference |
| 10:44 | walterbender | SeanDaly: so what is dismaying? |
| 10:44 | mchua | SeanDaly: it looks like we're all set then, if sdziallas likes it |
| 10:44 | SeanDaly | walterbender: i was just worried sdz not seeing it |
| 10:44 | mchua | makes the edit to remove the "different versions..." part |
| 10:45 | sdziallas | I think the link at the end is important to create the reference between "a specific project" and SoaS as we're currently doing it. |
| 10:45 | but I like it. | |
| 10:45 | cjb | yeah |
| 10:45 | sdziallas | s/but/and even ;) |
| 10:45 | SeanDaly | link very important |
| 10:45 | mchua | it's edited - no more "different version..." part - and the link is in. |
| 10:45 | cjb | okay, getting a bit low on time |
| 10:45 | what's next? | |
| 10:45 | mchua | 5f, looks like |
| 10:46 | cjb | looks unobjectionable, perhaps with <contact us> linked |
| 10:46 | mchua | would suggest a link to the local labs page that lists the labs, but that's about it and it's not vital. |
| 10:46 | +1 on the <contact us> link, but I like the wording in any case | |
| 10:46 | SeanDaly | every mention of contact us should refer to address, either linked inline or "at address below" |
| 10:47 | re 5f: i agree Sl shoiuld designate, but on information & belief we don't have that process worked out yet | |
| 10:48 | dirakx | agrees with mchua suggestion. |
| 10:48 | mchua | Hence the "contact SLOBs" - our catchall for all processes we don't have yet ;) |
| 10:48 | cjb | yeah, no need to be exhaustive |
| 10:48 | SeanDaly | can we remove the following from 5, re my pervious remark? ", which we may choose to register" |
| 10:48 | cjb | ok |
| 10:49 | walterbender | SeanDaly: ok |
| 10:49 | mchua | +1 |
| 10:49 | walterbender | SeanDaly: but I imagine Karen added it for a reason |
| 10:49 | cjb | ok, so let's add links to "Sugar Labs" -> list, and "contact us" -> contact |
| 10:49 | mchua | (do we need to make sure they're en route to being registered in order to preemptively protect the trademark?) |
| 10:50 | SeanDaly | walterbender: i wasn't aware she added that, but she will need to review this doc before final pub |
| 10:50 | mchua: protecting a tm is "soft", registering is part of process, but use & good faith etc. other aspects | |
| 10:51 | walterbender | any other outstanding issues re the TM document? |
| 10:51 | mchua | it sounds like everyone likes 5a with the linking of "contact us" and perhaps linking to the local labs page. |
| 10:51 | SeanDaly | mchua: often customary to reregister a logo after registering text |
| 10:51 | mchua | walterbender: nah, I think we might actually be done |
| 10:51 | walterbender | I'd like to make a motion that we incorporate these changes |
| 10:52 | mchua | seconded |
| 10:52 | SeanDaly | section 6 needs link to logo page. But lots of merchandising ideas floating, this may need updating too. e.g. star marketing of Activities |
| 10:52 | cjb | walterbender: perhaps a little slower -- .. |
| 10:52 | well, we could do something like this | |
| 10:52 | SeanDaly | section 7 needs link to SFC and ideally should have their street address |
| 10:52 | walterbender | cjb: there would be caveats re adding links to examples and getting final wordsmithing by the SFC |
| 10:53 | cjb | motion to announce on iaep@ that these guidelines will go live in a week if there haven't been any objections etc? |
| 10:53 | it worries me that we seem to not have any feedback on the policy | |
| 10:53 | walterbender | cjb: sounds good. |
| 10:53 | SeanDaly | legal stuff usually implies an address where docs can be delivered |
| 10:53 | cjb | so it'd be good to check that we aren't totally out of sync with others :) |
| 10:53 | mchua | cjb: send to SFC in a week, or goes live in a week with approval from SFC? |
| 10:54 | cjb | mchua: I guess the latter is fine |
| 10:54 | goes live in a week, pending approval from SFC and no objections from iaep | |
| 10:54 | walterbender | mchua: I think in this case we could move in parallel--ask for a community review and an SFC review now |
| 10:54 | cjb | yeah |
| 10:54 | SeanDaly | i'm late to the game (been travelling and caught short) i may need to tweak some stuff, also not sure how soon logo program text can be chosen |
| 10:54 | walterbender | but I think we should actually vote on it as a motion to make it go live... |
| 10:54 | cjb | ok |
| 10:55 | mchua | "release early release often" |
| 10:55 | walterbender | so for the moment, we can consider this more discussion of the current motion... |
| 10:55 | mchua | we can propose changes later when SeanDaly gets his changes written up, etc |
| 10:55 | cjb | shall we vote now? |
| 10:55 | SeanDaly | walterbender: agree perhaps we could "publish draft for review" with deadline date before submittal to SFC? |
| 10:56 | walterbender | cjb: I think we need not vote on anything now... we have a previous motion open and this is just a continuation of that discussion. |
| 10:56 | cjb | oh, ok |
| 10:56 | in that case, we have eight minutes left :-) | |
| 10:56 | SeanDaly | mchua: i followed GPLv3 review process, many drafts lots of discussion, result bulletproof (hopefully) |
| 10:56 | cjb | anything non-trademark happening at the moment? |
| 10:56 | walterbender | #Action: walter will clean up the text and send it to IAEP and SFC |
| 10:57 | I need to wrap up in a few minutes... | |
| 10:57 | SeanDaly | me too... |
| 10:57 | walterbender | cjb: I am working on the finances, but have some outstandign questions for SFC and David |
| 10:57 | maybe we can agree on the next meeting date? | |
| 10:57 | mchua | aye, looking at http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]inutes-2009-12-23 the other things on our agenda queue are bernie's infrastructure proposal and SL finances. |
| 10:57 | walterbender | a week from Friday t 15UTC? |
| 10:58 | cjb | walterbender: +1 |
| 10:58 | mchua | yeah, I thought we were going back to our normal meeting times, so +1 |
| 10:58 | walterbender | mchua: bernie is not here :( |
| 10:58 | SeanDaly | walterbender: +1 |
| 10:58 | cjb | walterbender: thanks for working on the finances |
| 10:58 | mchua | righto, but we can do his agenda-ness next time |
| 10:58 | walterbender | anything else that needs to be discussed right now? |
| 10:58 | mchua | so next week, finances + infrastructure? |
| 10:58 | nothing more this week I can think of. | |
| 10:58 | walterbender | mchua: sounds good... |
| 10:59 | ok. thanks everyone. happy new year. | |
| 10:59 | #endmeeting |