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 |