Talk:Trademark

Sugar Labs association/organization conflated with Sugar software

 * 2a & b, and elsewhere suggest that the full name of our product is 'Sugar Labs' rather than Sugar or some form of Sugar. Yes, 5e suggests that Sugar is short for Sugar Labs. This would be a new practice.  Why conflate the terms?


 * Why not register Sugar as a mark for our software, and Sugar Labs for our association?


 * --FGrose 23:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Logo

 * In paragraph 1, "(our trademark registration application for the logo is still pending)", is a separate statement, right? Sugar Labs is already registered, but the logos (colors and typeface) are pending registration, no? If so, this would be more clear as a separate sentence in the introduction, as it is currently too closely associated with the Sugar Labs name.
 * --FGrose 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the logo is not registered. It seemed that the name "Sugar Labs" was enough. --Walter 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Section 5a

 * It has been suggested that we certify distributions as "Sugar on a Stick". "Otherwise nothing stops anyone from creating a lousy version which hardly works and calls it Sugar on a Stick Peanut Butter release, etc."


 * Comments? --Walter 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We have our hands full verifying and testing our own release. Our best defense is focusing on making the best release and so being able to market it as such. --FGrose 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It adds yet another thing to worry about that can better be handled downstream. --Walter 23:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This line of judgement needs revisiting. "our own release" means Strawberry? If SL lets anyone use "Sugar on a Stick", then it's probably giving up the rights to the trademark "Sugar on a Stick", right?

Sugar Labs/Legal/Logo and trademark policy

 * This older page needs updating. --FGrose 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sugar on a Stick Guidelines
I am herewith proposing the following changes to the section 5a. This has been derived from Fedora's trademark guidelines and might need to be adjusted to cover more cases, as listed in those guidelines. By referring to Sugar on a Stick, the following draft means the project located and hosted here.


 * You may use the term Sugar on a Stick whenever referring to the official Sugar on a Stick product and its releases, as well as when distributing unmodified copies of it.
 * However, this usage must not imply any endorsement by Sugar Labs or the Sugar on a Stick project, unless this is case and an appropriate agreement has been reached.
 * You may modify Sugar on a Stick and create remixes of it.
 * However, when distributing or selling this modified version, you must not call it Sugar on a Stick.
 * When not exposing the resulting product to the public, you may still call it Sugar on a Stick, though. A deployment might adjust Sugar on a Stick for its needs and still say it deployed Sugar on a Stick, as long as the modified version is not distributed publicly.

substantially unmodified
We discuss examples of "substantially unmodified" in Section 2 of the policy: "including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches." But it would be instructive to give some examples of changes that would not qualify as substantially unmodified: including but not limited to adding of non-free drivers. (We need to build consensus around this issue.) --Walter 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How to make modifications
There is a discussion here about making a systemic process for most trivial modifications. --Walter 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Trademark Policy
Final text moved to Trademark during the May 6/7, 2010 SLOBs approval.

= Trademark case studies =

As the next step in working on the trademark, we are preparing case studies. The below text is taken from the Trademark case studies page - please edit that page directly to contribute.