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

#sugar-meeting, 2009-12-30

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

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

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.