Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-12-23

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search
<walterbender> cjb and sean will probably miss today's meeting. any one hear from Mel?
<tomeu> hi all
  • tomeu hasn't heard from mchua_afk
<cjb> morning folks
<walterbender> cjb: glad you can join us.
<walterbender> cjb: I hope it is warmer in CA than MA
<cjb> certainly :)
<walterbender> I think we have a quorum, so let's get started.
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<meeting> Meeting started at 10:02 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
<meeting> Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
<walterbender> #TOPIC our licensing policy
<walterbender> We got a good start on a discussion last week.
<walterbender> I think we need to come to terms with a few basic principles
<walterbender> ^terms^consensus
<walterbender> namely, to what extent do we want to control what is a "remix" vs what can be called Sugar
<walterbender> I think we are reasonably clear at this point in our trademark policy as far as giving guidance to potential collaborators
<tomeu> walterbender: hmm, you mean that the remixes policy is already in our trademark policy?
<walterbender> and I think we concluded last time that we would routinely ask for SLOB approval of all uses of our name.
<walterbender> tomeu: yes.
<cjb> walterbender: not quite
<cjb> walterbender: I agree Sean proposed that
<cjb> but Bernie was concerned that it's too strict, and liked the idea of having an always-acceptable use of the Sugar name
<walterbender> tomeu: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#substantially_unmodified
<cjb> which we talked about as "Foo, sweetened by Sugar"
<tomeu> ah
<tomeu> that's what apache allows, "powered by apache"
<walterbender> cjb: I think that anything that falls within the "substantially unmodified" category is "always acceptable"
<cjb> hm, I think we're talking about different things though
<walterbender> cjb: and I think we need to come up with some scenarios that help people better understand what we mean...
<cjb> I don't think "Foo, sweetened by Sugar" should have to be substantially unmodified
<walterbender> cjb: OK. Let's discuss it.
<cjb> walterbender: yeah, definitely
<bemasc> why doesn't Gnome have this problem?
<walterbender> cjb: can you give me an example?
<walterbender> bemasc: not clear that they don't
<cjb> walterbender: OLPC's one example, I suppose :)
<walterbender> cjb: Is OLPC substantially modifying Sugar?
<cjb> I don't think so; not at the moment.
  • walterbender would love OLPC to ack that they are "sweetened by Sugar" :)
<tomeu> possible example: OLPC decides to ship sugar 0.86 but with some modifications to the file layout of its datastore
<tomeu> because that layout is faster for olpc's nand
<tomeu> that would be substantially modified, right?
<bemasc> Gnome doesn't even suggest that people ship Gnome unmodified
<walterbender> tomeu: that seems to be OK--changes required for compatibility...
<tomeu> bemasc: what about gnome mobile?
<cjb> gnome mobile doesn't exist
<cjb> it was just a press release.
<tomeu> cjb: well, gnome's board uses to talk about it quite regularly
<walterbender> bemasc: Gnome aside, we have certain obligations as a member of the SFC
<tomeu> bemasc: the problem with gnome may be that they haven't worried much about their own brand
<walterbender> bemasc: obligations to free software
<bemasc> tomeu: and yet they have the strongest brand of any Free desktop.
<cjb> tomeu: maybe they think that their brand will be best furthered by having it be used liberally
<walterbender> cjb: I for one want a similar policy for Sugar--spread it liberally--but I want to balance that with a strong sense of what is true to our core values...
<bemasc> walterbender: then it sounds like what you want is policy for what Sugar Labs will and will not do.
<tomeu> bemasc: well, do the others care?
<bemasc> That's different from policy for what everyone else can do.
<walterbender> bemasc: and we allow others to do what they want... but where is the line we draw as to whether they call what they do Sugar or Sugar "remix"?
<tomeu> cjb: may be better to directly ask their marketing team instead of guessing
<cjb> tomeu: good idea!
<tomeu> " Do not combine or use a GNOME Trademark with your company's product or service name or any other term unless you have written permission to do so. Use of GNOME Trademarks in that sort of way would NOT be a fair use."
<tomeu> from http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/
<bernie> oh? did we move the slobs meeting today? I hadn't noticed
<walterbender> but back to the question of where does our current policy as defined in the TM guidelines get in the way?
<tomeu> bernie: walterbender forgot to send you direct email ;)
<tomeu> from my POV the only interesting point to discuss is if we leave a remix mechanism with no or few restrictions
<tomeu> gnome seems to not allow it
<tomeu> apache seems to have a very liberal one with "powered by apache"
<tomeu> and fedora seems to have a more restricted one
<cjb> tomeu: but it's weird, because every distro's release notes will say things like "includes GNOME"
<walterbender> tomeu: fedora has a liberal one compared to SUSE
<cjb> so I think that perhaps it's just not possible to stop from saying "includes <noun>TM"
<tomeu> cjb: yeah, the gnome community is not too consistent
<walterbender> cjb: that is back to the includes (sweetened by) vs a Sugar product which is a remix
<cjb> walterbender: gotcha
<tomeu> walterbender: ok, I would like to have both
<cjb> so I suspect we are mostly in agreement that includes/sweetened by should be unprotected?
<tomeu> so that OLPC can say that their products include sugar (if they wish to)
<cjb> i.e. anyone can say that without our permission
<tomeu> sorry, I mean to say that their computers run sugar
<bernie> Sorry, I must leave soon. but you could put on record that I'm in favor of a liberal trademark licensing policy, similar to the Linux Foundation: http://www.linuxmark.org/
<walterbender> cjb: I think there is no problem mentioning the fact that Sugar or Gnome is included... without any approval... but morphed into something new... and co-branded... that is the issue.
<cjb> but where we need to discuss more is the remix policy for modifying Sugar itself
<tomeu> and anybody else could say that they include sugar regardless of how modified it is
<cjb> bernie: ok, thanks
<cjb> we should perhaps start an iaep@ thread about this
<satellit> use of different modified KS file to make sugar?
<walterbender> ciao bernardo... have fun with your sister :)
<bernie> cjb: I think it would make sense to check with the community
<cjb> satellit: that's not modifying sugar, so it is unaffected
<tomeu> yes, I think we shouldn't spend too much of our time on this, at least until we start receiving requests for co-branding
<bernie> walterbender: thanks and happy holidays
<satellit> even if includes non free apps?
<cjb> of course
<walterbender> tomeu: we have some outstanding requests and one that we turned down.
<cjb> we cannot stop someone from a creating a distro that includes Sugar and non-free apps
<cjb> that's simply not covered by copyright or trademark laws
<walterbender> tomeu: an anything goes policy has implications for support as well...
<tomeu> walterbender: for cobranding or for remixes?
<cjb> they should not say that the result is simply "Sugar", since it's clearly "SomethingElse, with Sugar"
<walterbender> tomeu: cobranding
<walterbender> cjb: I agree....
<bemasc> ok, I think Gnome probably has the right idea, though it's ugly.
<tomeu> walterbender: and do we need to cover all the cobranding situations in the policy?
<walterbender> cjb: anyone can unilaterally say "with Sugar", but to call it Sugar, we need to "bless" it.
<bemasc> write up a strict yet of usage guidelines that nobody will follow, and then don't enforce them unless someone is doing something obviously wrong
<cjb> walterbender: got it
<tomeu> or it's enough to say that each case needs approval from SLs?
<cjb> bemasc: haha
<tomeu> bemasc: but they don't lose the right to defend the trademark if they don't defend it?
<walterbender> tomeu: I think the point that Bernie (and CJB) had raised earlier is that we want to allow "with Sugar" without the need for approval.
<cjb> yeah
<cjb> so:
<cjb> "Sugar" = strongly protected
<cjb> "Foo Sugar" = also protected
<walterbender> bemasc: I agree with Tomeu; I don't think we can do that.
<bemasc> tomeu: only if it becomes a generic term.
<cjb> "Foo, <together with> Sugar" = unprotected
<satellit> use of other fruit names? without permission?
<cjb> satellit: of course
<tomeu> bemasc: that's not what I have heard
<walterbender> satellit: I am not sure I follow
<satellit> suppose someone makes a rasberry with sugar distro
<cjb> satellit: give an example?
<tomeu> cjb: by protected you mean that an explicit license needs to be asked?
<cjb> tomeu: that's great
<cjb> oops
<cjb> tomeu: that's right
<tomeu> ok, so I like what cjb proposes
<tomeu> we can make it into a motion, even if only to start some discussion on the ml
<cjb> we could even say e.g. "your own noun must come before 'Sugar', not after it"
<cjb> GNOME does something similar here:
<walterbender> the only part of what cjb proposes that is not already explicit in our TM gudelines is the "Foo, <together with> Sugar" bit
<cjb> > Your name and/or logo should appear more prominently than the GNOME mark on all printed materials related to the publication.
<tomeu> walterbender: yeah, would like to know if sean agrees with it
<walterbender> we'd have to ask our lawyers to make sure the language we chose is appropriate and enforceable.
<tomeu> yeah
<walterbender> cjb: the latter is also in accordance with Fedora. I think it is important
<tomeu> but maybe is worth it if more people can make use of the sugar brand in ways that helps the community
<walterbender> so we could codify this into a motion to modify the TM guidelines, vet it on the list and with the marketing team and SFC and vote on it next time?
<cjb> ok
<walterbender> the two bits being "Foo, <together with> Sugar" and Your name and/or logo should appear more prominently...
<walterbender> probably two separate motions, actually
<cjb> MOTION: "When creating a product, "Sugar" is a trademark-protected phrase that requires permission from SLOBS. The exception is the phrasing "Foo, <together with> Sugar", which is unprotected. Note that "Foo" must be being used more prominently than "Sugar" in advertising materials in this case."
<tomeu> the second should come from the marketing team?
<cjb> yeah, I think that the name/logo thing could be handled separately
<walterbender> tomeu: we can second the motion and that opens it up for discussion...
<cjb> it would be good to include an example
<cjb> MOTION: "When creating a product, "Sugar" is a trademark-protected phrase that requires permission from SLOBS. The exception is the phrasing "Foo, <together with> Sugar", which is unprotected. An example of unprotected use: "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar".
<tomeu> ok, I second that
<cjb> how about we just go with that for now?
<walterbender> cjb: presumably a Clause 2.d.
<cjb> walterbender: sorry, don't follow
<walterbender> cjb: we want this to fit within the context of http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark
<cjb> oh, right
<cjb> yup!
<bemasc> I think you should just fix 2.a
<cjb> it's actually already related to 2.b
<bemasc> "based on Sugar Labs"... doesn't even make sense.
<cjb> we're just explaining how an acceptable way of 2.b might go
<bemasc> Sugar Labs is never a component of a software offering
<walterbender> bemasc: well, as an expansion of 2 b, yes.
<walterbender> bemasc: say what?
<cjb> I agree with bemasc about s/Sugar Labs/Sugar/g in the second para of 2.a
<bemasc> Sugar Labs is an organization. It is not software.
<bemasc> The whole trademark policy doesn't parse.
<cjb> > you may refer to your product as "derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs."
<cjb> yeah, it is more than just 2.a.
<walterbender> bemasc, cjb: we cover this in Section 5, but I agree, it is not clear.
<bemasc> It looks like the whole trademark policy was just a string interpolation
<bemasc> based on organizations whose name is the same as the name of their product
<walterbender> bemasc: we have protected SL and Sugar in the context of learning s'ware.
<cjb> I think there are two choices:
<cjb> either change "Sugar Labs" to "Sugar" in most places, or
<cjb> change "Sugar Labs" to "the Sugar Labs marks" in most places
<walterbender> can we bifurcate the discussion? (1) get the Sugar vs Sugar Labs wording sorted out and (2) get the sweetened by language in?
<walterbender> I'd like to finish discussing #2 and then perhaps a "committee" can take the rewording off line and report back next week?
<walterbender> If the wording were correct, I think cjb's new language would make sense as an expansion of 2.b.
<cjb> ok. I propose adding "For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or another "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" without permission" construction would be unrestricted" to 2.b
<cjb> oops
<cjb> ok. I propose adding "For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or another "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" construction would be unrestricted" to 2.b
<bemasc> cjb: I think 2.a makes more sense...
<bemasc> It already contains a listing of pre-approved language for noting things based on Sugar Labs software
<cjb> bemasc: not quiet
<bemasc> all you seem to be doing is adding one more
<walterbender> ^quiet^quite?
<cjb> 2.a talks about releasing something that started out being Sugar and is now something else
<cjb> 2.b talks about products that are not Sugar, but contain it
<cjb> and I think we're interested in 2.b
<bemasc> ok
<walterbender> And I think we want to unleash 2.b. without requiring people to as permission...
<cjb> well, we're unleashing 2.a too
<cjb> since it's under a "this is what you can do without permission" section
<cjb> but that requires us to define "substantially unmodified"
<walterbender> cjb: separate topic...
<cjb> yup
<walterbender> cjb: Can you state your new language as a motion?
<cjb> ok
<cjb> MOTION: Add "For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or other "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" language would be a use that does not require permission" to trademark policy section 2.b
<walterbender> second
<cjb> ok. vote postponed for a week or two.
<walterbender> #action bring the discussion to IAEP and marketing and then vote at the next meeting
<walterbender> Great. It may seem trivial, but I think this will help.
<walterbender> Can we move on to the "substantially unmodified" topic briefly?
<cjb> ok
<walterbender> #topic "substantially unmodified"
<walterbender> I think we have a working definition, but we need to flesh it out with more examples
<walterbender> actually, examples of modifications that would need approval.
<cjb> ok
<walterbender> I also think, from the technical perspective, as suggested by Carlo, we need a better definition of where and how to make modifications--substantial or not.
<walterbender> but I don't think a motion is required here so much as some community work
<satellit> zyx-liveinstaller in distro ok but VMPlayer?
<satellit> non free
<walterbender> satellit: that would suggest a "derived from" name
<tomeu> hmm, do we care about distro issues?
<cjb> I don't see how we could control what other software people put in distros containing Sugar
<cjb> of course they can't say that the result is merely "Sugar", but they already can't do that
<walterbender> cjb: if Sugar is included, it is a sweetened by...
<cjb> walterbender: yes
<walterbender> cjb: but in the case of SoaS, it would have to be a derived from if it adds non-FOSS...
<satellit> virtual box ose vs sun virtual box?
<walterbender> at least, that is my interpretation
<cjb> Sugar on a Stick would require permission anyway
<walterbender> satellit: I am not familiar enough with the details, but it would require a discussion and permission...
<satellit> but is a live Cd .iso as distributed
<cjb> so, I don't think we're actually adding anything to the trademark policy here
<cjb> if people were using 2.b, we can't regulate what they package
<cjb> if people were using 2.a, they were already depending on an arbitrary decision from us
<cjb> uh, that's not quite right
  • walterbender as an aside would love to see all the source and build tools distributed on a helper CD
<cjb> if people were using 2.b, we can't regulate what they package
<walterbender> cjb: I completely agree
<cjb> if people were using Sugar marks without invoking section 2, they were already asking for permission
<cjb> ok
<cjb> so we're discussing what criteria we will take into account when deciding whether to give them permission?
<walterbender> cjb: yes... clarifying "substantially modified"
<cjb> no, I disagree
<cjb> I'll try and be more clear about why
<walterbender> cjb: what criteria by which they decide it they need to ask permission
<cjb> it just doesn't really make sense for the SoaS case
<cjb> if someone is deriving from SoaS
<walterbender> as to whether or not we give permission, that is not really covered anywhere
<cjb> they may not use Sugar in their name anyway
<cjb> they may use ".. derived from Sugar"
<cjb> but then it doesn't matter whether they have FOSS; that's unprotected
<walterbender> cjb: if they don't want to say derived from, then it is a matter of 2.a.
<cjb> I think of 2.a as talking about modifications to the Sugar codebase, I guess
<satellit> what about a iso of SOAS with an automatic search for usb and install program on startup? is that still soas?
<walterbender> cjb: I think it is any modification of any of the products referred to in Section 5
<cjb> walterbender: 5.a is out of date as of last week, though
<cjb> because we asked people to refrain from using "Sugar on a Stick" at all
<cjb> I think this is why I'm being confused
<walterbender> satellit: in my judgment, that would be an OK change because it is minor and distro-related
<walterbender> cjb: yeah. that is confusing
<walterbender> everyone--it is 11 EST. We should wrap up.
<cjb> yup
<cjb> was there anything else on the agenda?
<walterbender> Bernie's infrastructure discussion
<cjb> ok; I think the idea is that he has free hosting now and wants to spend $3000 on a machine
<cjb> I'd like to get a better idea of our finances
<walterbender> cjb: I don't want to lose your point about prominence of the mark... new language for Section 4.
<cjb> the last ledger from Bradley was pretty confusing to me
<walterbender> cjb: I am acting finance director :(
<walterbender> I'm trying to get up to speed
<cjb> thanks for doing that
<cjb> do you think you could try and come up with a "this is how much money is in our account and spendable on new items" number for next week?
<walterbender> cjb: maybe I can convince Chuck to volunteer for this role :)
<cjb> :)
<walterbender> cjb: I'll try.
<walterbender> well every, happy holidays... try to get some R&R in with family.
<walterbender> to be continued.
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 11:07.
<meeting> Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/