Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Log-2010-01-15


 * startmeeting
 *   Meeting started at 11:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
 * Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
 *   #TOPIC Trademark Policy
 * I think we are about done, except for the final wording of 2a/2b from Marketing
 * Sean, do you want to comment?
 *  just a minute...
 *   FYI, I heard from the SFC re soas.
 *  looking for page :-(
 * sdziallas:hullos, lurking.
 *   "As far as Sugar on a Stick goes, we have in fact submitted the trademark
 * application for it, so while it has not yet been granted, we're taking
 * affirmative steps to protect the mark as SL's."
 *  excellent news
 *   Awesome.
 *   The SFC did not have any problems with any of the proposed changes either
 * SeanDaly:still looking for page
 *   mchua: maybe while Sean is looking, we can try to answer the Fedora question?
 *   Yes, let me find the link archive to Paul's message.
 *   Here are Paul's questions:
 * Basically, the questions are these:
 * 1. Does Sugar Labs *currently* own the Sugar on a Stick trademark?
 * 2a. If not, are they comfortable with our using the name for this
 * release, and revisiting next release to make sure we're in
 * adherence with their guidelines?
 * 2b. If so, do the level of modifications in Sebastian's SoaS spin make
 * it ineligible for their trademark?
 * mchua:also trying to get Paul in here.
 *   We just answered #1
 *  http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
 *   I think 2b is no--the changes do not make it ineligible
 *   #link http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2010-January/009838.html has the questions and some commentary, with Paul acting as a liason to the Fedora Board.
 * info Question from the Fedora Board: Does SL currently own the SoaS trademark?
 *   or restating, the changes are not "substantial"
 *   (what's a quick restatement of the answer to #1, for #info-ing for the logs?)
 *   mchua: As per the message I relayed from the SFC, we do "own" the Sugar on a Stick trademark (pending)
 * and will protect it
 *   #info We do own the SoaS trademark (pending) and will protect it.
 * link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
 * mchua:being meetbot-friendly today, for faster lazy notes reading later ;)
 *  re the Sugar on a Stick tm, we have had an arguable claim, and are now registering formally
 *   so I think we are clear on our affirmative answer here.
 *   Do we need a motion on 2b?
 * mchua:think it's pretty clear
 *   do we also agree that the Fedora SoaS spin is eligible to be called SoaS?
 * I think that is also clear... we have agreed to this already
 * as per 5a
 *   #info Yes, Sebastian's SoaS Fedora Spin is acceptable for the SoaS trademark; the changes are "not substantial" as per our trademark policy section 5a (see link above)
 * That was easy.
 *   ok
 * -->|:stickster (n=nnpfriel@ip72-205-14-2.dc.dc.cox.net) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   can we return to 2a/2b and Sean's edits?
 *  just a minute, what is the difference between SoaS and SoaS? i'm confused
 *   stickster: hey! fyi: http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meeting/sugar-meeting.minutes.20100115_1101.html
 *   Sorry I'm late -- thanks sdziallas. mchua is filling me in via PM
 *   I just summarized our #info answers to 1 and 2b.
 * sdziallas:notes that he doesn't intend to do various SoaS's.
 *   SeanDaly: can you restate your question?
 *  sdziallas: this is why i'm confused
 *   walterbender: I think it's the "Fedora SoaS spin" phrasing.
 * (which is a bit strange)
 *  mchau: i think it's your phrase confusing me, "fedora Spin"
 *   SeanDaly: Oh - it was referring to sdziallas's decision to do this upcoming release of SoaS as a Fedora Spin.
 *  for me the SoaS name and mark refers to sdz's project
 * there isn't another one?
 *   sdziallas, stickster, mchua: for the record: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-18 is also relevant to Fedora Q2b
 *   SeanDaly: Nope!
 * SeanDaly:ok less confused
 *   That's why the phrasing might indeed be confusing.
 *   I got disconnected, sorry
 *   I've proposed that the next SoaS build gets build by Fedora as part of their spin process.
 *   bernie: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy has backscroll.
 *  may I propose clearer wording for 5a?
 *   bernie: http://pastebin.be/22945
 * sdziallas: it seems the process of creating the spin is somewhat orthogonal... as it should be in my opinion
 *  The "Sugar on a Stick" name and mark is associated with a specific Sugar Labs liveUSB project. You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key or other support, bbut you must choose a different name to avoid confusion.
 *   SeanDaly: that is clear
 *  i find 2a and 2b a bit foggy
 *   walterbender: well... I'm just saying that I certainly don't want several $DISTRO SoaS editions.
 *   seandaly: but other than switching the sentence order, is it really any different?
 *  sdziallas: i agree
 * bernie:finished reading backscroll
 *   SeanDaly: but I am happy with that restatement...
 * SeanDaly: you replaced required with must... I suppose that is a wash?
 *  walterbender: meaning is same, but I think is clearer
 *   sdziallas: I agree
 *  "are required" is fine
 *   sdziallas: the other existing live usb distros are already called something different
 *   stickster: did we answer the questions the Fedora Board had?
 *   sdziallas: I think it's pacific that SoaS means Fedora SoaS from now on
 *   bernie: yes! I just don't want anybody to get the impression that the Fedora SoaS will be anything different than SoaS. - I want them to be the same for now.
 *   folks, I know stickster has to run in about 15m so is there anything else we need to ask him/want to clear up?
 * walterbender: you had something about translations?
 *  bernie: the idea with tm policy is protection from the ill-intentioned...
 *   bernie: hehe ;)
 *   I would like to clear up the question Rita had last week
 *   SeanDaly: +1
 *   if she makes a .de version of SoaS, is Fedora OK with that?
 *   mchua: Yes, my questions are all answered
 * <SeanDaly> getting back to 2a and 2b, i think there is a clear case for making translated versions simple
 * but, where are bug reports filed for translated versions?
 *   stickster: ^^ walterbender's question
 * <SeanDaly> what contact info is given?
 *   #info All of Fedora's questions have been answered, w00t.
 * <SeanDaly> is Activity set identical?
 *   SeanDaly: but I want to make sure that Fedora is OK with translations too, since SoaS has to uphold both our and their stamdards.
 *   walterbender: I'm encouraging them to work with the SoaS team to get the files into our GIT repo.
 *   SeanDaly: that is a different question altogehter...
 *   walterbender: That's permissible from our standpoint, which is 100% remixability. Usage of "SoaS" on that .de version would really be up to SL, but Fedora wouldn't have any problem with it. Helpful if it was labeled clearly
 *   stickster: thanks for the clarification. I'll let Rita know.
 *   sdziallas: but would you object with them working on a separate repo if they prefer for interal reasons?
 * internal
 *   SeanDaly: we have thus far skirted the issue of activities, additional content, etc., presuming it is all free...
 *   bernie: if they decide to havily modify the system or content, yes.
 *   SeanDaly: I think I would like to defer that set of mods to a separate discussion
 *   sdziallas: then they should rename SoaS to something else, right?
 *   bernie: exactly!
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: if it's called Sugar on a Stick...
 *   bernie: if they just want to change the language, it's certainly fine with me to be called SoaS.
 * <SeanDaly> i believe translation is a special case of "remix"
 *   #info Question for Fedora: Are translations (example: Rita's .de version of SoaS) of the SoaS Fedora Spin accepable for Fedora?
 *   sdziallas: and, if I understand correctly, something like "German SoaS" or "Sugar on a SD Card" would be fine with us?
 *   bernie: you mean when it's heavily modified or just the language changed?
 * <SeanDaly> but translation to me means: same download page, same Activity set, same bugtracker
 *   #info Yes, from Fedora's standpoint on Fedora Spins, it is permissible; their goal is 100% remixability. Usage of the word "SoaS" on that .de version is SL's decision.
 *   SeanDaly: +1!
 * <SeanDaly> just different language
 *   sdziallas: let's say they have heavily modified to the point they can't use the plain SoaS name any more
 * SeanDaly: +1
 *   bernie: German SoaS won't work from my point of view, then.
 * bernie: because it's just not SoaS anymore.
 * (since they don't follow the criteria SeanDaly just mentioned)
 * <SeanDaly> put another way: how can we support sdz in bringing localization?
 *   does anyone else have any changes/comments re the TM guidelines?
 *   sdziallas: then I think we're being even more restrictive than Fedora. It is acceptable to call something "Fedora Lab" or "Super Hacked Fedora" by Red Hat's trademark policy, I believe
 * mchua: right?
 *   bernie: nope.
 *   bernie: not correct
 *   I think the issues re process are orthogonal...
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: re my mail about tm and label program: I think we can't escape imposing as condition a request + authorization step
 * stickster:wants to make sure everyone understands his opinion was on the permissibility of a separately hosted .de version of SoaS -- Fedora is not being asked to build or maintain any separate SoaS at this point, other than sdziallas' spin
 *   correct?
 *   correct
 *   stickster: what I'm suggesting is to have simple kickstart files for other languages, as some Fedora Spins already have, too (which haven't been approved, either).
 *   stickster: I think we agree on this. I'm making a wider argument on permitted usage of the SoaS base name in derivatives.
 *   bernie: if you alter it substantially, it's not SoaS anymore.
 *   the question is simply, if someone wants to make a .de version of SoaS, no matter what process is used to make it, as long as it is not a substantial change to Sugar (as per 2a) is it OK with Fedora as wll.
 *   Yes.
 * walterbender: ^^ Thanks :-)
 *   sdziallas: well, "Funky SoaS" is clearly not SoaS. It's about how much we want to be restrictive about the name SoaS
 *   bernie: sure, it is.
 *   bernie: are you wanting to reopen 2a?
 *   bernie: you can't go and take Ubuntu and call it My Fedora, either.
 * <SeanDaly> in my view we need to foster multi languages for SoaS, but we can't have those all over the Net
 *   I'd like us to be as restrictive as the mark Linux (i.e. not too much)
 * stickster:notes that Fedora allows remixes that depart substantially by providing a secondary mark and logo.
 *   stickster: that's probably the way to go, yes.
 *   You'll find that information in our trademark guidelines page as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Secondary_mark
 * oops
 *   (it's actually a really cool policy)
 *   You'll find that information in our trademark guidelines page as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Secondary_Mark
 *   walterbender: did we already vote 2a?
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: to build Sugar on a Stick brand, it has to be crystal clear what that means
 *   bernie: I was about to make a motion...
 *   bernie: on sugar, soas, or both?
 *   bernie: we have been discussing 2a for over 1 month
 * <SeanDaly> the concept is to reserve the SoaS name to the SL project, while opening a label program with the Sugar mark for other, differently named projects
 *   well, if there's general consensus abut 2a being appropriate, then I guess I'll withdraw my proposal
 * walterbender: oh, good
 * SeanDaly: I think it's too restrictive to reserve both SoaS and names based on SoaS such as "Funky SoaS"
 * SeanDaly: Linux doesn't do that, although Ubuntu and maybe Fedora does
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: we can't build the brand otherwise :-(
 *   Motion: We agree to adopt the 15 January 2010 draft of the Trademakr Policy (ref: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy)
 * Discussion:
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: "Linux" is a whopping failure as a brand, unfortunately
 *   This draft includes the various modifications discussed over the past 6 weeks.
 * mchua:listens to walterbender
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: as i say, per my mail i don't think we can escape an authorization step
 *   SeanDaly: Linux has a very strong brand exactly *because* its trademark policy was relatively liberal (although not in the same userbase we're interested in)
 *   The significant changes since our last meeting are the finalized language in 2a and 2b from Marketing
 *   SeanDaly: I don't think the difference is that it's a failure, rather than people don't give support for "linux", but for fedora, ubuntu, etc
 * that's why the fedora and ubuntu brands are more protected
 *   specifically: "sweetened by"
 * <SeanDaly> i am talking about the *brand*, not the project
 *   walterbender: I second the motion. We can refine and amend it later on, but this is a good start to have.
 *   we could be more liberal with sugar than with soas
 *   and a minor modification in 5a--sentence order--for clarity
 *   SeanDaly: well, I agree that Linux as a brand is a failure in certain markets and a success in others. Exactly the same of Windows :-)
 *   bernie, SeanDaly: can we take the Linux-as-a-brand convo to list?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: again, 2a nad 2b are not ready per my mail
 *   bernie: GNU/Linux :)
 *   walterbender: lol :-)
 *   SeanDaly: can we fix them now?
 * <SeanDaly> anyone who wants to wiggle has a loophole
 *   mchua: if we move the conversation to the list, then we can't vote now
 *   bernie: No, just the "is Linux a strong brand" discussion.
 * <SeanDaly> the way i see it is similar to GPL, certain restrictions apply
 *   mchua: or we can just say it's been sufficiently discussed already and proceed with a vote anyway
 * <SeanDaly> we need a basis to revoke a trademark license
 * cjb`:peers in briefly
 * =-=:cjb` is now known as cjb
 * <SeanDaly> the best way is to have explicitly granted it
 *   hi cjb... happy hunting?
 *   SeanDaly: I'd make the restrictions the same of the Linux TM or the Wikipedia TM: i.e. you can't use it in disparaging or confusing ways
 *   walterbender: starts in 20 mins, just finished carrying some carloads over
 *   walterbender, what else is on the agenda to get through today? I'd like to make sure we're not blocking anything else time-sensitive before we spent the rest of our 25 minutes on trademark.
 * <SeanDaly> the several cases we have dealt with up to now show we are still finding sceanrios
 * SeanDaly:greets cjb
 *   bernie: that is what we are trying to do, but we need to define what we consider confusing
 *   mchua: certainly finances
 * =-=:stickster is now known as stickster_afk
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: yes, that's why request/auth cycle necessary: so we can decide if use of our mark confusing or not
 *   SeanDaly: I'd be ok with a restrictive policy in our legal mumbo jumbo if we agree to be very liberal and quick in approving those requesting a license
 *   SeanDaly: can you please restate exactly what remains problematic re 2a. 2b, other than scope, which Bernie has a problem with.
 * <SeanDaly> explicitly, 2a and 2b require written permission, only 2c doesn't
 *   cjb: Yeah, that would be my primary concern.
 * I also don't want to block bernie getting any servers he needs.
 *   SeanDaly: So if we just say that, then you are OK?
 * <CanoeBerry> Is a compromise betwe bernie & SeanDaly's point-of-view possible, with notification required but not permission?
 * <SeanDaly> yes - 2a and 2b we authorize explicitly (label program)
 *   mchua: thanks, but I also don't want to delay the TM discussion any further... it's been going on for months
 * <SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: no, because the ill-intentioned seeking a loophole will just claim they sent a mail they never did
 *   SeanDaly: see the edits I just made to http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
 * <SeanDaly> i understand the motivation to get it done, but it's more important to get it right
 * SeanDaly:looking now
 *   SeanDaly: can we amend 2a saying explicitly something that makes it clear that Sugar Labs generally grants free trademark licenses in most cases?
 * <--:dirakx has left freenode (Connection timed out)
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: yes much better for protecting & growing tm's
 * bernie: why?
 *   SeanDaly: seems like a good compromise between being liberal about the TM and defending it.
 * <SeanDaly> our goal is to grow awareness, to do that we need to protect marks
 *   SeanDaly: I don't think it hurts to suggest we are going to do our best to be coorperatve
 * <SeanDaly> again, i'm not worried about the sincere, just the insincere
 *   SeanDaly: my problem is that people will feel the need to call their product FrugBluz instead of "SoaS Paraguay" because they think they'd not get a license
 * <CanoeBerry> SeanDaly aside: if we need ever need to enforce emails being received that is a solvable problem-- email notification could be accompanied by a requirement that someone post thehybrid/remix/whateve r to a wiki listing of all such offshoots.
 *   bernie: I think this is where we show things by our actions and deeds, not by words.
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: that's easy, we link to a FAQ which explains how simple the procedure is and gives examples
 *   SeanDaly: let's put it this way: will we be liberal in granting TM licenses if those asking them are not being abusive?
 * <SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: see my mail on this topic to the marketing list - URLs part of request
 *   SeanDaly: And, if so, do we have a problem in saying so explicitly?
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: 1) why not? 2) sure - like I say, in the FAQ
 *   mchua: words are cheap, if this is what we do, why not say so prominently at the top of the TM page?
 *   bernie: we have some language--maybe not enough--in the preamble
 *   SeanDaly: ok, then I guess I agree with 2a with the FAQ clarifying this (or we could say so at the top of the page to make it easy to find)
 * <SeanDaly> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2010-January/002621.html
 *   walterbender: "The purpose of this policy is to protect the public, by ensuring that the identity, provenance, and open-source nature of Sugar Labs® remain clear."
 *   bernie: that might be the place to say "We try to be be very liberal and quick in approving those requesting a license"
 *   SeanDaly: /me reads
 * walterbender: +1
 * <SeanDaly> we could add to preamble our objective to spread Sugar and encourage use on different platforms
 *   shall we add a licensing@sugarlabs.org alias?
 * <SeanDaly> i would oppose "liberal and quick" just look how long it took to resolve SoaS debate :-(
 *   we should also explciitly reference http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Transactions#License_request
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: I think trademarks@sugarlabs.org better, this is distinct from software licensing
 *   "we will do our best to work with you on... blahblah"
 *   SeanDaly: this also looks good, I hadn't noticed it before: http://www.linuxmark.org/license.php
 * <SeanDaly> sdziallas: +1
 * sdziallas:also curious where this alias would redirect
 *   sdziallas: yeah, we should probably nominate a licensing person
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: yes, it's good... and more restrictive than ours :D
 *   sdziallas: the fsf has one
 * -->|:FranXOphonie (n=FranXOph@bas3-quebec09-1176414596.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   sdziallas: perhaps a panel? (jesus, not! :-)
 *   bernie: DOH! :)
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: the preamble is a good place to explain our objectives of spreading Sugar while protecting our marks
 *   SeanDaly: +1
 * sdziallas, walterbender: can we make SeanDaly our "licensing panel" to start with?
 * <SeanDaly> in my mind, auth by SLOBs vote if request is in order; just somebody to evaluate request and make reco to SLOBs (this could be me)
 * sdziallas:would like to have a SoaS team in the loop, obviously.
 *   I may make mail for licensing@sugarlabs.org (or trademark@sugarlabs.org ?) go to Sean... and maybe also to marketing@, or slobs@?
 *   (in case it concerns SoaS, at least)
 *   so the "licensing person" makes sure it gets brought up as a proper motion in a SLOBs meeting, basically?
 * if it passes general sanity tests?
 *   sdziallas: then we should then distinguish licensing requests for SoaS from those for Sugar... I had both in mind at the same time.
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: trademark@ is better this is for trademark licensing, not SW licensing
 *   mchua: no, I was thinking that the licensing person would make the decision on his/her own
 *   OK. I added new language in the preamble and after Section 2b. Please have a look
 *   mchua: to streamline the procedure
 *   Also, we have once again run out of time :(
 * <CanoeBerry> will all decisions be public, or just the final verdict?
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: yes, a procedure in place: mail arrives, response saying is under consideration, request evaluated, returned if incomplete, when complete passed for vote with reco
 * -->|:dogi (n=dogi@c-65-96-166-32.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   bernie: probably, yeah. well, at least I believe there should be technical approval before something which wants to use the SoaS name goes up SLOBs (Fedora has the Spin SIG which has to decide on the technical approval, the Board afterwards on the trademark one).
 *   SeanDaly: +1 to that procedure.
 * <SeanDaly> The purpose of this policy is to protect the public, by ensuring that the identity, provenance, and open-source nature of Sugar Labs® remain clear, while encouraging Sugar use and development on different platforms and in different languages.
 *   CanoeBerry: I would imagine that the organization requesting the mark would be asked if hey are OK wth a public discussion, but by default, for their privacy, it should be a closed discussion
 *   mchua: requesting a slobs vote means that we delay by 1 week *minimum*. We could trust Sean to do a good job at licensing, and if he doesn't people can always appeal to the board
 * dogi: ciao
 *   bernie: I would rather work on improving the decision-making efficiency of SLOBs.
 * <SeanDaly> sdziallas: i agree - eval will have several criteria, per my mail to mktg list linked above
 *   cioa bernie
 *   bernie: If people *know* they will have to wait a week, I think that's fine.
 *   sdziallas: it seems a little overkill to me
 *   SeanDaly: okay, cool :) (I wouldn't want a vote on SoaS to happen in private when I can't watch it)
 *   well, I must withdraw my motion and will make a new motion next weel--16UTC :)
 *   bernie: so SLOBs would just vote on any SoaS thing in private without telling me?
 * s/would/could
 *   #action: between now and then we should finalize the preamble
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: legal stuff usually best confidential... because the ill-intentioned will do evil best to exploit dissent or weak arguments...
 *   mchua: if it's really a week, thant it would be fine
 *   People don't make things that need trademark decisions on the spur of the moment - to go from "idea to make $distro!" to "oh, I've got a testable $distro!" usually takes... at least a week.
 * imo.
 *   mchua: +1.
 *   I think the discussion about the process of implementing the guidelines should be a separate discssion.
 *   bernie: we do votes by email as well
 *   sdziallas: yeah, for SoaS I would agree that you should be at least consulted :-)
 * <SeanDaly> sdziallas: myself, I cannot imagine voting on anything SoaS without consulting you
 *   tomeu: yeah right
 *   mchua: haven't we already improved decision making compared to what bernie says?
 *   sdziallas: Yes, and I think we could do a better job of lining up and announcing the SLOBs meeting agenda in advance so that nobody gets blindsided.
 *   so can we please, please do our homework between meetings this time so we can reach some consensus?
 *   tomeu: I believe we have - it's the making of motions we need to work on, not so much passing them. ;)
 * walterbender: What's our homework?
 *   bernie, SeanDaly: cool! :) (sounds like I'm fine then)
 *   clean up the TM policy language
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: my homework is a preamble which shows how friendly we are and willing to grant tm licenses
 * mchua: and, finalizing the procedure for the label program
 *   tomeu: I guess it depends how controversial the decision is. for those where we're divided, we may take a lot of time...
 *   and a final review of the entirety of the document...
 *   tomeu: which is not necessarily bad, it's how democracy is supposed to work :)
 * sdziallas: yep
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: and, probably putting the final text for the label program in 2a/2b
 *   SeanDaly: +1
 *   bernie: in fairness, we have been at this for over a month and there has been plenty of opportunity to raise these issues early... in fact many had been raised early and discussed.
 * well, let's call it a day.
 *   bernie, perhaps the two of us could figure out your requirements for what it'd mean for trademarks to be a non-PITA to get, so we can check the proposed motions againt that next week.
 *   thank you everyone.
 *   SeanDaly: sorry for being so pushy about the friendly thing. I cared very much for it :-/
 *   Thanks, Walter.
 * <SeanDaly> I admit I am cautious, but for good cause
 *   #endmeeting
 *   Meeting finished at 12:06.
 * Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/