Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-12-30

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
<dirakx> hello.
<walterbender> dirakx: hi
  • dirakx waiting for the meeting..just to listen an learn :).
<walterbender> dirakx: glad you'll be joining in...
<walterbender> mchua: I took a stab at some rewording of the TM guidelines in anticipation of today's discussion: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
<dirakx> walterbender: thanks.
<walterbender> mchua (and anyone else): any premeeting edits/comments appreciated
<mchua> walterbender: I'm going through our past 4 meetings to find inconsistencies with the TM guidelines right now, actually - reading your rewordings ?
<walterbender> mchua: always remember "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." :)
<walterbender> mchua: when in doubt, let human judgment prevail :)
<dirakx> regarding TM, i think that for local labs there is no problem using SugarLabs(r) and the name of the country..true?.
<walterbender> dirakx: I think it is fine, but then again, local labs have all been established in cooperation with SL, so there is an explict permission granted.
<mchua> walterbender: yeah, I tend to get too nitpicky for my own good :)
<dirakx> cool.
<walterbender> dirakx: we need to track these things if only because if there were multiple competing "local labs" in a region or country, we'd want a fair way to adjudicate.
<dirakx> ok
<walterbender> dirakx: but maybe we should add some language about local labs to the guidelines
<dirakx> walterbender: regarding what you said before, if the local labs are officially registered in each country, other local labs can be stablished but they had to change their name..(that happens at least here),
<dirakx> f.e. if there are two local labs in argentina one can be named sugar labs argentina but the other one have to chnage for sugar labs pampas or the like,,,
<walterbender> dirakx: I just added a new Section 5 f.
<walterbender> hey SeanDaly
<walterbender> shall we get started?
<walterbender> is cjb here?
<SeanDaly> hi walterbender!
<walterbender> tomeu?
<tomeu> I'm here
<SeanDaly> hi tomeu
  • mchua around, merging suggestions into trademark portion of wiki
<walterbender> I think Bernie is traveling
<tomeu> (but may be dragged away in a bit)
<walterbender> I have another meeting at 11, so let's begin
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<meeting> Meeting started at 10:02 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
<meeting> Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
<dirakx> walterbender: it's ok to me.
<cjb> I'm here (but sleepy)
<walterbender> We have a lot to cover, but I want to begin by hopefully wrapping up the TM discussion
<walterbender> #Topic TM guidelines
<SeanDaly> hi cjb... I'm "droopy"
<walterbender> I tried to incorporate our discussions into a new draft
<walterbender> See http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
<walterbender> bold is new text; strike is deleted text
  • mchua adding a few notes to that right now.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: do keep in mind Karen should sign off on that before "official" policy published
<walterbender> SeanDaly: yes. But we need to clarify our intentions
<walterbender> shall we walk through the proposed changes?
<SeanDaly> I have a comment first if I may
  • mchua done with comments in page
<SeanDaly> my idea was that trademark be licensed without contact, but with "safety valve" conditions
<SeanDaly> in other words, that the license be revocable if certain conditions were met (or not)
<cjb> > you may refer to your product as "derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs."
<walterbender> SeanDaly: we tried to do that in 2.b.
<SeanDaly> for example, if SL logo not secondary enough in marketing materials
<cjb> this one needs the company/software rewording too
<walterbender> SeanDaly: we should add a link to examples in 4.a.
<SeanDaly> a policy is always best explained with examples, seems to me the fedora tm page did that too
<walterbender> cjb: this one referring to the entire document or just 2.b.
<walterbender> but let's do this from the top.
<walterbender> Mel added some text re "approved licenses" in 2.a.
<cjb> walterbender: I think only 2.a still has the problem
<SeanDaly> also... i'm sorry, what with travelling didn't do my post of candidate phrases for sugar labels
<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.)
<walterbender> mchua: gotcha
<SeanDaly> s/that mark is associated/that mark is currently associated/
<walterbender> SeanDaly: noted.
<SeanDaly> s/Sugar on a Stick Strawberry/Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry (this was PR nomenclature)
<walterbender> cjb: I am not sure it is broken. See the definition of Marks at the top of the document.
<SeanDaly> in response to Mel's question in 2a, we are referring to the Sebastian project
<mchua> cjb: 2a: s/Sugar Labs software/software produced by Sugar Labs - would that remove the confusion?
<cjb> mchua: no, it's the later phrases
<mchua> SeanDaly: is there any language we can use to clarify that?
<cjb> > derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs."
<cjb> I don't think these make sense
<cjb> because nothing is "derived from Sugar Labs"
<cjb> unless it is a very similar nonprofit ;-)
<walterbender> cjb: a local lab :)
<walterbender> cjb: I missed that one. You are right. Let me try something...
<cjb> rewording:
<cjb> > you may refer to your product as "derived from Sugar Labs," "based on Sugar Labs," or "a derivative of Sugar Labs."
<cjb> oops
<cjb> try again
<walterbender> cjb: a subtle change :)
<cjb> > you may refer to your product as "derived from", "based on", or "a derivative" of a Sugar Labs mark
<cjb> how's that?
<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
<walterbender> cjb: that sounds great...
<cjb> ok, will save it
<mchua> cjb rewording++
<mchua> 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?
<SeanDaly> walterbender, cjb: the idea is to build up a specific logo phrase
<SeanDaly> not generic "derived from" stuff
<cjb> mchua: saved
<walterbender> SeanDaly: when we have such a phase...
<SeanDaly> the logo/phrase not chosen yet (marketing issue) I have 15-20 candidates
<SeanDaly> was travelling didn't take time to enumerate them
<walterbender> SeanDaly: in the meanwhile, we need a placeholder.
<walterbender> SeanDaly: which brings us to 2.b.
<SeanDaly> loosely based on Intel's "Intel inside" program
<walterbender> which is the subject of the motion on the table
<SeanDaly> please contact us -> there should be a mail address there
<walterbender> we have a contact address at the bottom of the document
<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)
<SeanDaly> mchua: i like thank you
<cjb> looks good
<walterbender> guys, can we finish up the discussion of 2.b.?
<cjb> walterbender: what's left?
<SeanDaly> "please conatct us at the address below"
<SeanDaly> has to be absolutely crystal clear how contact is done
<walterbender> cjb: just that we had an open motion on that specific paragraph
<walterbender> SeanDaly: +1
<SeanDaly> otherwise somebody sends a random mail offlist
<cjb> walterbender: oh, yeah
<walterbender> maybe we can ditch the motion and make a new one to cover all of these changes?
<mchua> Do we want to add specific examples of non-appropriate use for 2.b?
<cjb> mchua: that sounds reasonable
<mchua> so, a few examples that may or may not be appropriate...
<mchua> * Fooproject with Sugar
<mchua> * Fooproject, Sugarized (do we allow modified versions of the word "Sugar," including "verbifications"? Fedora doesn't; see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Trademark_Usage_Guidelines)
<mchua> * Sugar Fooproject
<mchua> * Sugar's Fooproject
<mchua> * Fooproject's Sugar
<SeanDaly> again, this is just placeholder until specific logo+phrase chosen
<cjb> I'm okay with saying that all of those require permission
<SeanDaly> the idea being that *only* logo&phrase be used
<mchua> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Trademark_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.
<SeanDaly> what I want is a logo program, no permission necessary, but conditions attached which allow us to revoke logo if necessary
<SeanDaly> the logo+phrase aren't ready yet, but the placeholder words in the motion work for me
<cjb> SeanDaly: so, uh
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I think that is what we already have...
<cjb> a logo program only works when a use is accompanied by graphics
<cjb> but most uses might not be
<SeanDaly> cjb: cf. the word "logo" ;-)
<cjb> what happens with them, in your new model?
<SeanDaly> cjb: a website with no graphics ??
<cjb> SeanDaly: not every use will have a website
<SeanDaly> cjb: this not new, floated idea 2 meetings ago
<SeanDaly> cjb: a Sugar distro with no website?
<cjb> http://en.opensuse.org/Sugar#Sugar_on_a_Stick
<cjb> obviously not the greatest example
<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.
<walterbender> SeanDaly: right now our TM is on the words, not the artwork, but since the artwork uses the words, it is covered
<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/legal/tmusage2.htm#using the sort of thing you're looking for?
<SeanDaly> mchua: I can't digest those in realtime :-(
<mchua> SeanDaly: no worries, they'll be in the logs now in case they're useful for reference :)
<walterbender> but can we get back the specifics of the TM guidelines document itself?
<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
<mchua> SeanDaly: (totally feel free to ignore them - they're basically nicely-written corporate sounding boilerplate)
<cjb> but it's just an intuition
<SeanDaly> walterbender: 1) yes a FAQ 2) the phrasing in the draft motion will do until logo+phrase are ready
<mchua> walterbender++ - were we on 3?
<walterbender> there are still a few sections we need to discuss
<mchua> if we're moving on from 2b, anyway
<walterbender> section 3 just has some cosmetic changes
<walterbender> section 4a--comments?
<mchua> 4a needs examples too
<mchua> ...actually, everything in 4 could benefit from examples.
<walterbender> mchua: agreed.
<walterbender> but is the spirit correct?
  • mchua thinks so.
<walterbender> shall we look at 5.a.? this is a substantial change
<SeanDaly> 4a:
<SeanDaly> s/should be secondary in advertising materials/should be secondary in graphic materials (advertising, marketing, website)
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I think it shoud be more general--to include non-graphical uses too
<SeanDaly> about 5, it's not really a question of choosing to register, it's a question of the strength of our claim
<SeanDaly> walterbender: sure, but I'm thinking in terms of logo program
<walterbender> SeanDaly: this is our TM guidelines, which sits above our logo program
<cjb> I think that walterbender's wording is okay, because I think that marketing/graphics/website are all "advertising materials"
<SeanDaly> cjb: you and I think that, but for anyone not like-minded, that's a "loophole"
<SeanDaly> the whole concept of legal language is to limit wriggle room
<SeanDaly> as Karen said, once we are clear on what we want, she can approve/draft language
<walterbender> SeanDaly: how about if we say: in advertising materials, including...
<SeanDaly> walterbender: +1
<SeanDaly> 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."
<mchua> SeanDaly: I was about to ask the same thing.
<mchua> current wording of 5a without the revision markers, for reference:
<mchua> 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.
<SeanDaly> it was only necessary under previos "regime" ;-)
<mchua> whoops.
<mchua> 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.
<mchua> there we go.
<cjb> that's the smae again
<cjb> oh, not quite the same
<cjb> can we just remove everything after <link>?
  • SeanDaly dismaed
<SeanDaly> cjb: +1
<walterbender> cjb: +1
<mchua> +1
<walterbender> SeanDaly: what are you dismayed about?
<SeanDaly> for the record, I regret sdz not here since he had a hand in drafting doc and is a stakeholder in SoaS
<walterbender> SeanDaly: yes, but what is bothering you about the current wording?
<mchua> sdziallas: ping
<SeanDaly> text following the link superfluous to me
  • sdziallas hullos.
  • SeanDaly hi sdziallas
  • sdziallas waves to SeanDaly and others
<mchua> sdziallas: how do you like the rewording on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy section 5a?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I don't understand. You think it is or is not superfluous?
  • SeanDaly you're like genie in bottle - I make a wish, mchua gets you to appear :D
  • sdziallas grins ;)
<sdziallas> mchua has the magic lamp, I guess.
<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'
<walterbender> SeanDaly: then we all agree
<SeanDaly> yes quite
  • sdziallas does, too.
<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
<walterbender> SeanDaly: so what is dismaying?
<mchua> SeanDaly: it looks like we're all set then, if sdziallas likes it
<SeanDaly> walterbender: i was just worried sdz not seeing it
  • mchua makes the edit to remove the "different versions..." part
<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.
<sdziallas> but I like it.
<cjb> yeah
<sdziallas> s/but/and even ;)
<SeanDaly> link very important
<mchua> it's edited - no more "different version..." part - and the link is in.
<cjb> okay, getting a bit low on time
<cjb> what's next?
<mchua> 5f, looks like
<cjb> looks unobjectionable, perhaps with <contact us> linked
  • mchua would suggest a link to the local labs page that lists the labs, but that's about it and it's not vital.
<mchua> +1 on the <contact us> link, but I like the wording in any case
<SeanDaly> every mention of contact us should refer to address, either linked inline or "at address below"
<SeanDaly> re 5f: i agree Sl shoiuld designate, but on information & belief we don't have that process worked out yet
  • dirakx agrees with mchua suggestion.
<mchua> Hence the "contact SLOBs" - our catchall for all processes we don't have yet ;)
<cjb> yeah, no need to be exhaustive
<SeanDaly> can we remove the following from 5, re my pervious remark? ", which we may choose to register"
<cjb> ok
<walterbender> SeanDaly: ok
<mchua> +1
<walterbender> SeanDaly: but I imagine Karen added it for a reason
<cjb> ok, so let's add links to "Sugar Labs" -> list, and "contact us" -> contact
<mchua> (do we need to make sure they're en route to being registered in order to preemptively protect the trademark?)
<SeanDaly> walterbender: i wasn't aware she added that, but she will need to review this doc before final pub
<SeanDaly> mchua: protecting a tm is "soft", registering is part of process, but use & good faith etc. other aspects
<walterbender> any other outstanding issues re the TM document?
<SeanDaly> mchua: often customary to reregister a logo after registering text
<mchua> it sounds like everyone likes 5a with the linking of "contact us" and perhaps linking to the local labs page.
<mchua> walterbender: nah, I think we might actually be done
<walterbender> I'd like to make a motion that we incorporate these changes
<mchua> seconded
<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
<cjb> walterbender: perhaps a little slower -- ..
<cjb> well, we could do something like this
<SeanDaly> section 7 needs link to SFC and ideally should have their street address
<walterbender> cjb: there would be caveats re adding links to examples and getting final wordsmithing by the SFC
<cjb> motion to announce on iaep@ that these guidelines will go live in a week if there haven't been any objections etc?
<cjb> it worries me that we seem to not have any feedback on the policy
<walterbender> cjb: sounds good.
<SeanDaly> legal stuff usually implies an address where docs can be delivered
<cjb> so it'd be good to check that we aren't totally out of sync with others :)
<mchua> cjb: send to SFC in a week, or goes live in a week with approval from SFC?
<cjb> mchua: I guess the latter is fine
<walterbender> mchua: I think in this case we could move in parallel--ask for a community review and an SFC review now
<cjb> goes live in a week, pending approval from SFC and no objections from iaep
<cjb> yeah
<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
<walterbender> but I think we should actually vote on it as a motion to make it go live...
<cjb> ok
<mchua> "release early release often"
<walterbender> so for the moment, we can consider this more discussion of the current motion...
<mchua> we can propose changes later when SeanDaly gets his changes written up, etc
<cjb> shall we vote now?
<SeanDaly> walterbender: agree perhaps we could "publish draft for review" with deadline date before submittal to SFC?
<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.
<cjb> oh, ok
<cjb> in that case, we have eight minutes left :-)
<SeanDaly> mchua: i followed GPLv3 review process, many drafts lots of discussion, result bulletproof (hopefully)
<cjb> anything non-trademark happening at the moment?
<walterbender> #Action: walter will clean up the text and send it to IAEP and SFC
<walterbender> I need to wrap up in a few minutes...
<SeanDaly> me too...
<walterbender> cjb: I am working on the finances, but have some outstandign questions for SFC and David
<walterbender> maybe we can agree on the next meeting date?
<walterbender> a week from Friday t 15UTC?
<mchua> aye, looking at http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-23 the other things on our agenda queue are bernie's infrastructure proposal and SL finances.
<walterbender> mchua: bernie is not here :(
<cjb> walterbender: +1
<mchua> yeah, I thought we were going back to our normal meeting times, so +1
<SeanDaly> walterbender: +1
<cjb> walterbender: thanks for working on the finances
<mchua> righto, but we can do his agenda-ness next time
<walterbender> anything else that needs to be discussed right now?
<mchua> so next week, finances + infrastructure?
<mchua> nothing more this week I can think of.
<walterbender> mchua: sounds good...
<walterbender> ok. thanks everyone. happy new year.
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 10:59.
<meeting> Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/
<SeanDaly> bonnes fêtes à toutes et à tous
<cjb> et toi :)
<mchua> 新年快乐!
  • cjb flying back to Boston in a few hours.
  • mchua not going home until Sunday, looking forard to it
<sdziallas> Guten Rutsch!