Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-12-18

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<meeting> Meeting started at 10:00 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
<meeting> Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
<walterbender> good to see everyone here today...
<walterbender> I'd like to begin by wrapping up the discussion of Q2 from last week.
<walterbender> #topic Motion 4 SL should not be completely neutral about promoting distros
<walterbender> There was a revision to the motion proposed by email during the post-meeting discussion:
<walterbender> "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and infrastructure. SL Marketing may strategically decide to focus resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more effectively."
<walterbender> Seemed to be consensus on this wording.
  • tomeu likes it
<SeanDaly> I believe there was consensus
<cjb> morning all
<tomeu> took us a time to get it :)
<walterbender> Bernie: would you propose this as a motion so we can vote on it?
<bernie> walterbender: sure
<walterbender> I second bernie's motion
<bernie> bernie: I need some time to integrate the proposed changes, would we like to move on to the next topic, meanwhile?
<walterbender> bernie: OK. If you want. Let me know when you are ready.
<walterbender> #topic Q3: SoaS Name
<walterbender> Is everyone familiar with this issue?
<walterbender> (See http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Decision_panels/SOAS#Q3:_SoaS_name)
<bernie> MOTION: Q2: Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and infrastructure. SL Marketing may strategically decide to focus resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more effectively.
<walterbender> seconded
<walterbender> any further discussion needed at this point?
  • bernie yea
<SeanDaly> ready to vote
<tomeu> I think we discussed it quite a bit already
<walterbender> I think we covered it in email... I'll link the thread in the minutes.
<walterbender> let's vote
<walterbender> yea
<tomeu> yea
<SeanDaly> yea
<cjb> yea
<CanoeBerry> yea
<bernie> mchua: mel?
<walterbender> I am not sure she is here...
<walterbender> I'll ask for an email vote, but the motion passes.
<walterbender> Nice job with the rewording :)
<bernie> walterbender: she was here a few mins ago: 9:56 * mchua_afk is now known as mchua
<walterbender> So shall we tackle the name issue?
<walterbender> This one seemed unresolved by the DP
<SeanDaly> that's right no consensus
<walterbender> So it is up to us to try to come up with a decision.
  • cjb inclined to answer yes
<SeanDaly> perhaps, taking a cue from Q2,
<SeanDaly> we can craft a text which clarifies the issues
<cjb> SeanDaly: want to try wording a motion?
<walterbender> Here is my opinion in brief: if someone starts a project, they have a right to the name of that project and any fork should be clearly distinguishable.
<bernie> cjb: yes as in "please don't use SoaS unless you refer to SoaS-Fedora"?
<cjb> bernie: yes
<SeanDaly> My position is, confusion is a deadly for marketing
<SeanDaly> at the same time, vital to approve & support Sugar remixes/spins
<bernie> before I answer this question, I feel I need to know if a derivative of SoaS-fedora is acceptable or not
<walterbender> On the other hand, if the community invests a lot of its ergs into the initiative, there is some need to ack that contribution
  • mchua reads backscroll, sorry I'm late
<walterbender> mchua: welcome :)
<SeanDaly> there's a support question. Virtual, since support is limited, but
  • mchua yea on the Q2 motion, for the record.
<cjb> bernie: of course it is, if it's not called SoaS
<SeanDaly> if name is reused with different and therefore confusing marketing angle, that's a problem
<bernie> cjb: oh, then you'd be in favor of calling something Sugar on a Stick Remix or Sugar on a Stick Grove?
<cjb> bernie: not really, no
<SeanDaly> Actually I consider this question to be closely linked to trademark policy
<mchua> Yeah, I had two questions on this note
<tomeu> I would delegate that question on the marketing team
<mchua> 1. Sugar is a SL trademark (via the SFC). What is the policy for usage of this trademark?
<cjb> bernie: I'd rather a completely new name was used, since the whole point is to avoid confusion
<satellit> sugar-desktop on a stick?
<SeanDaly> I've done lots of thinking about that and i have a proposal
<karenesq> fyi, the trademark policy as I proposed it intitially says if it's not "substantially unmodified" should be referred to as "derived from", "based on" or "a derivative of"
<mchua> 2. Is SoaS a SL trademark? If so, what is the policy for usage of this trademark?
  • mchua curious about SeanDaly's proposal
<bernie> SeanDaly: can we just say "you are allowed to use the name in non-confusing ways" in our trademark policy, or would it be too vague and legally ambiguous?
<walterbender> maybe we could break the discussion into two parts: if the word Sugar were not in the name vs when it is.
<bernie> karenesq: hello karen!
<karenesq> and overall that you can't use any marks that could cause confusion as to the identity of the SL project or the provenance of its software
<cjb> I guess I'm trying to answer this question without using trademark law at all.
<SeanDaly> bernie: it's us who has to decide if it's confusing or not
<karenesq> hi bernie!
<karenesq> agreed, the law hinges on whether the use is confusing or not
<SeanDaly> ultimately, in my view, we should accord icenses for use of our trademarks
<karenesq> we're in the process of preparing the SoaS registration
<mchua> cjb: can we? My impression is that we'd need trademark law to back up whatever decision/policy we set, but ianal.
<walterbender> cjb: I'd like to resolve it in general terms but the use of the word Sugar adds a complication (or responsibility n our part)
<cjb> the question itself avoids mentioning trademark law, too: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using [..]" clearly doesn't depend on the law
<bernie> karenesq: do you mean this? http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark
<SeanDaly> walterbender: I agree, and that's what I want to deal with
<mchua> cjb: but the basis on which we're able to enforce that request is trademark law.
<karenesq> bernie: yes
<CanoeBerry> FYI many countries give you commonlaw trademark protection even if you don't file
<karenesq> CanoeBerry: yes, and the US is one of those
<walterbender> SeanDaly: but can we agree that a project (let's use Turtle Art as an example) in general should control its name?
<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: I believe we need to file with WIPO
<cjb> mchua: I think the social enforcement of "this is what SL says you're allowed to do" is actually much stronger than the legal protection.
<walterbender> and that if someone wants to fork TA, they need to call it something different?
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes I fully agree
<walterbender> do others agree in principle?
<SeanDaly> walterbender: unless a license to do otherwise accorded
<cjb> yes, agree
<walterbender> SeanDaly: sure, but I think the license is usually to make derivatives, but not necessarily to the name
<SeanDaly> what makes the Sugar case "sticky" (pun intended) is that referring to Sugar can help build the brand
<walterbender> karenesq: could you clarify that point?
<mchua> cjb: agree. I do think they are both necessary but not sufficient, only both together are sufficient (enough to let me sleep at night about it).
<SeanDaly> walterbender: there's a license for the code, and a license for trademark use
<karenesq> walterbender: sure, which point?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I agree. Bit I wanted to get this general principle established before the TM discussion
<SeanDaly> franchisers do this for example
<walterbender> karenesq: the issue of a project fork using the name of the project
<SeanDaly> walterbender: i agree important
<SeanDaly> My approach is the following:
<mchua> walterbender: if a project in general should control its name, wouldn't it actually be sdziallas et al who should control the term 'SoaS'?
<bernie> mchua: I wonder who came up with the name Sugar on a Stick first.
<walterbender> karenesq: If I want to fork gzip, do I call it gzip or do I make it clear it is a derivative work?
<SeanDaly> we need to encourage Sugar variants adapted locally, with Activity mixes and so on
<mchua> perhaps asking SL to hold the trademark/registration on behalf of their project, but nevertheless.
<bernie> mchua: honestly, I first heard it from Caroline at Sugar Camp I.
<cjb> walterbender: I guess we have a real life example here with Food Force.
<cjb> (Which I don't know the story behind, just that there appears to be two forks with the same name being run by different people who don't like each other.)
<SeanDaly> ...but we need to avoid confusion
<karenesq> sorry walterbender, I'm a slower typer! The way our policy is written for "sugarlabs", and the default operation under trademark law would make this the case
<mchua> bernie: but who actually /made/ it?
<mchua> bernie: ideas are easy; doing is hard.
<karenesq> what we said in the policy that we drafted about SoaS was: You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key and refer to it as "Sugar on a Stick". However, you are encouraged to add a qualifying label to distinguish it from other distributions. For example, the "Sugar on a Stick Strawberry" Release is based on Fedora 11.
  • mchua sits back to listen to SeanDaly's proposal
<tomeu> bernie: well, you realize most things months after they happen :p
<bernie> mchua: I'm an engineer myself, but I see development as just one of the many phases of creating a product.
<cjb> karenesq: so, I guess we're actually debating a stronger answer here
<SeanDaly> karenesq: I wouldn't agree with that wording
<walterbender> karenesq: seems clear to me and I think we'd want to follow the same guidelines re this question and projects in general
<karenesq> so it sounds like the policy we want is close to that but with stronger requirements regarding the qualifying label
<bernie> tomeu: true, but nobody can stay on top of everything...
<SeanDaly> I was thinking about the fedora remix logo
<cjb> karenesq: no, we're actually saying that we don't want anyone other than the group already using the term to use "Sugar on a Stick" at all.
<karenesq> walterbender: it seems much closer to what we had proposed for the sugarlabs mark - can only use the name if substantially unmodified
<cjb> .. and if you want to make a derivative, which is fine, a totally different name should be used.
<mchua> SeanDaly: "we need to encourage Sugar variants adapted locally, with Activity mixes and so on, but we need to avoid confusion." What policy (or policy options) would fit that best?
<walterbender> cjb: well. not clear. I think we could ask people to qualify the term to make it clear it is not *the* SoaS
  • mchua is trying to figure out what viewpoints everyone is coming from here
<mchua> SeanDaly is clearly coming from the marketing side of things
<karenesq> and if not substantially unmodified you must label as "derived from" "based on" or "a derivative of"
<mchua> karenesq is clearly coming from the lawyer side :)
<walterbender> mchua: I am in favor of clarity and fairness
<SeanDaly> difficulty arises if changes mean divergent marketing
<karenesq> mchua: yes, but we can adjust the policy to reflect what you think is right to the extent it is compatible with trademark law
<SeanDaly> So, I think we should license our trademarks with an equivalent to "fedora remix" logo
<mchua> I'm trying to optimize for community-building - what arrangment will make it easiest for me to get new folks involved to help the SoaS project(s)
<mchua> SeanDaly: +1
<bernie> cjb: I'd allow using derivative names too, as in Red Hat Linux, Ubuntu Linux...
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I think we can promote SoaS as the Blueberry version while Triquel promotes toast and SUSE promotes foo
<bernie> SeanDaly: +1
<cjb> bernie: that's not an example
<walterbender> and I think Triquel for example has made it clear.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes, but if each calls it "Sugar on a Stick" there will be confusion
<cjb> bernie: an example of a derivative name here would be more like "Red Hat Linux cjb edition"
<cjb> since we're talking about a derivative of a product
<walterbender> SeanDaly: to some degree, yes, because the qualifier will get dropped inevitably
<bernie> cjb: Both Red Hat and Linux are trademars, but the trademark holder of Linux is more permissive than Red Hat.
<cjb> ok
<bernie> cjb: I'd like us to be as permissive, if possible
<walterbender> cjb: I am running Fedora Linux cjb edition on my XO 1.5 :)
<cjb> walterbender: :)
<SeanDaly> what i would suggest is: a remix be called anything without the name Sugar in it, but has a SL equivalent of "fedora remix" label
<mchua> SeanDaly: hang on, I'm intrigued by your proposal, I wonder if it's the same thing I have in mind. I'm going to try to resummarize, can you tell me how far off I am?
<karenesq> well, we can only give permission so long as the qualifyer is present. For anything other than what we permit in the policy, you'd need a license
<cjb> bernie: I guess I disagree; I think the Red Hat policy is more appropriate for SoaS, and the Linux policy is more appropriate for Sugar
<cjb> the more specific something is, the more reasonable it is to say "hey, other people, don't use that"
<SeanDaly> as it happens I have 15 or so proposals for SL sugar remix label
<mchua> SeanDaly: "Sugar" is an SL trademark, and if you want to use it in your product's name you can go through a process (that we'd need to set up) similar to how Fedora Remixes get to use the name "Fedora"
<walterbender> mchua: speaking of process, Karen and I have been working to clarify the process
<bernie> SeanDaly: the problem with adding qualifiers to Sugar on a Stick is that the name is already very long. If it were just one word (like Linux) it would be more natural.
<cjb> bernie: "Sugar on a Stick"'s very specific; it's basically a single product name. There's no value to allowing derivatives, it only adds confusion.
<mchua> SeanDaly: (this is the part I'm less sure I grok you on) SoaS would be a product whose name uses the Sugar trademark, and would therefore have to go through that process to get permission
<cjb> that's my perspective, anyway :)
<SeanDaly> mchua: Yes, but what I think will work best is if the name of project doesn't include Sugar, but the remix label does
<mchua> SeanDaly: ...ooh, okay, that's intriguing.
<walterbender> mchua: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Transactions#License_request
<SeanDaly> mchua: yes - a project could be granted a license to use the name Sugar in the name
<bernie> cjb: Red Hat wants to undercut competition with their product (such as CentOS). We instead want to encourage it. I guess?
  • mchua thinks about Fedora remixes - they still have Fedora in the name
<mchua> SeanDaly: would the "Sugar remix" label usage be separate from the "Sugar-in-your-project-name" usage?
<walterbender> mchua: and in the case of openSUSE, that would not be allowed at all
<SeanDaly> from a marketing standpoint, "remix" or "spin" not the best words
<mchua> SeanDaly: (i.e. would a project have to apply for the two separately?)
<walterbender> folks, are we drifting into the TM discussion?
<cjb> walterbender: yes
<mchua> yes.
<SeanDaly> mchua: my idea is: a generous trademark license for the remix logo, if the project doesn't have sugar in the name
<cjb> walterbender: mchua thinks it's relevant, I think
<bernie> hmm yes
<SeanDaly> and a negotiated license if Sugar is to be in the name
<walterbender> can we wrap up the specific SoaS topic or should we assume it will be resolved by the TM discussion?
<cjb> i.e. we can't decide whether to allow a specific trademark use without deciding what our trademark policy is
<walterbender> so let'
<walterbender> switch topics
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes... in my view Q3 relies on tm discussion
<walterbender> #topic Trademark
<bernie> SeanDaly: +1
<SeanDaly> cjb: exactly
<walterbender> we'll come back to the previous topic.
<mchua> thanks.
<cjb> I think we asked this already -- is "Sugar on a Stick" currently a trademark we own?
<SeanDaly> We want to raise awareness of "Sugar"
<walterbender> I added some notes here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11
<walterbender> In some sense we have a communications problem more than anything else...
<SeanDaly> walterbender: that's my POV
<walterbender> from the end-user POV, they are not going to understand what a remix is or where the chain of support and responsibility lies.
<karenesq> Sugar on a Stick is a SL mark that from what I understand SL has common law interest in (at least in the US), we were planning to register on behalf of SL/Conservancy
<SeanDaly> My proposal is to build Sugar brand awareness through our remix logo
<walterbender> karenesq: I think the issue is to what extent to we want an open remix policy
<walterbender> associated with our brand
<cjb> okay. so this clearly isn't a standard "what should we do with someone else's named project" thing; we're registering it and asserting ownership of the term by SL
<karenesq> walterbender: I understand, I was just answering cjb's question
<SeanDaly> walterbender: I think that's what my proposal will do
<cjb> so I suppose that answers mchua's question about whether this is delegated to sdziallas?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: could you restate your proposal?
<SeanDaly> what I would like is to reinforce the following ideas:
<SeanDaly> Sugar is educational software for children
<SeanDaly> Sugar is fun
<SeanDaly> Sugar is colorful, and varied
<SeanDaly> There is a Sugar ecosystem
<SeanDaly> You can adapt Sugar to your needs
<SeanDaly> But,
<SeanDaly> at the same time it is vital to have a unified marketing message
<SeanDaly> the way to do that is with the remix label,
<SeanDaly> but we words which reinforce the Sugar brand
<SeanDaly> and, we call them a (unary) something, implying there are others
<bernie> I would tend to agree
<SeanDaly> OK enough theory here are examples:
<SeanDaly> Trisquel Toast, a Sugar mix
<SeanDaly> Trisquel Toast, a Sugar confection
<SeanDaly> Trisquel Toast, a Sugar construction
<SeanDaly> Trisquel Toast, a Sugar variety
<SeanDaly> Trisquel Toast, a Sugar refinement
<walterbender> SeanDaly: +1 but do we need a mechanism of approval of the language people use?
<SeanDaly> I have 10 more but you get the picture
<satellit> sugar emulator running on different distributions. Called with sugar icon?
<cjb> satellit: yeah, that's fine
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I am completely happy as long as the language makes it clear what you re getting
<SeanDaly> walterbender: my idea is: Sugar not in the name, (and certain other conditions we can lay out), no approval necessary
<karenesq> SeanDaly: you can give people multiple choices like that, in the same way we had "a derivative of" or "based on"
<bernie> SeanDaly: not Trisquel Sugar?
<cjb> SeanDaly: it seems that this proposal needs a step where people submit their naming ideas to us
<SeanDaly> but, if Sugar in the name, case-by-case basis
<walterbender> People can do whatever they want, but the language needs to reflect that
<cjb> SeanDaly: because you could just have "Trisquel Toast, a Sugar release" and that would be really confusing
<walterbender> SeanDaly: yes. it seems to be a case-by-case discussion.
<cjb> SeanDaly: ok. so you are proposing that we review/authorize every Sugar use.
<karenesq> you could have some formulations pre-approved but for any others you'd need permission
<SeanDaly> cjb: that's why we pick the word - a sugar-related word, not remix, not spin, not release
<walterbender> sweetened by
  • mchua chuckles
<SeanDaly> karenesq: yes quite, I'd like to draw that boundary at using Sugar in the project name
<cjb> SeanDaly: you mean, other people pick the word and then ask us if it's okay, or we pick it?
<SeanDaly> walterbender: :D
<SeanDaly> cjb: if Sugar not in the name and they respect conditions we publish, no approval necessary
<walterbender> SeanDaly: seems like a good boundary...
<cjb> I'm not so convinced on having our trademark policy be "if you want to use Sugar in your derivative name, you have to ask us first"; it's creating a large bottleneck and giving us lots of work
<mchua> I like SeanDaly's proposal. My litmus test is "I've found an excited new contributor who wants to make a-thing-that-uses-Sugar; can they sit down and go through the naming process quickly and get it out of the way so they can Make Stuff"?
<cjb> could we also come up with formulations that have Sugar in the name that we preapprove?
<SeanDaly> cjb: what large bottleneck? not that many versions yet
<walterbender> cjb: I think that was what Sean was saying
<cjb> walterbender: oh, I missed that
<SeanDaly> cjb: no, we can't I'm afraid, confusion risk too high
<mchua> cjb: I'd like to have SLOBs approve - even if a quick vote in a SLOBs meeting - each use of Sugar in a project name.
<cjb> mchua: huh, ok
<mchua> cjb: as long as projects know from the start that they'll have to wait 'till the next SLOBs meeting to get a final yes/no, I think that's okay.
<walterbender> cjb: I guess I am the one who misunderstood
<mchua> I mean, one week is not *that* bad.
<SeanDaly> I came to this through scenarios
<cjb> if other people agree, I won't get in the way. :)
<mchua> and we can give them a clean yes/no if there's a good policy in place.
<SeanDaly> scenario 1: a spin by a school district or even country
<SeanDaly> scenario 2: a spin by an OEM
<cjb> mchua: I guess I feel that there's a not-very-concrete badness involved in introducing new ways in which people rely on SL to be able to get things done
<walterbender> cjb: the nice thing about it is that it brings public notice to the intention to use the name
<cjb> walterbender: that's true
<SeanDaly> scenario 3: a spin by an education systems provider
<SeanDaly> scenario 4: a developer doing cool stuff
<bernie> cjb: I agree with you. saying that you need to ask for permission is discriminatory. -1 from me.
<cjb> SeanDaly: to impatiently jump to the end, which I think is the answer to q3, am I right in thinking your proposal would be:
<cjb> * if you want to use the word Sugar in your deriv. name, you have to ask us
<cjb> * if your name has "Sugar on a Stick" in, and you aren't the spin SL marketing is pushing as SoaS, we will say no
<cjb> ?
<cjb> s/will say/will probably say/
<SeanDaly> cjb: yes, and we encourage use of our remix logo
<SeanDaly> because, the real possibility exists that in scenarios 1 or 2 above there could be a great contribution to raising Sugar awareness
<cjb> sdziallas raises a good point in #sugar, which is that last week we decided we weren't a distributor, and this week we're registering a trademark on a distribution
<cjb> why are both of these things true?
<walterbender> point of clarification: if I "sweeten" my distro by adding Sugar, do I need to ask permission to say, Walter-GNU-Linux, sweetened by Sugar?
<cjb> walterbender: yes, that's the proposal
<cjb> I think I prefer a compromise strategy
<SeanDaly> walterbender: slightly different approach for distros
<cjb> wherein custom names that have Sugar in are regulated
<walterbender> cjb: I think we could have some standard templates
<cjb> and "sweetened by Sugar" would be .. right, that
<cjb> we'd make our policy pre-known on that.
<walterbender> cjb: +1
<SeanDaly> taking advantage of fact that there are few major ones, and together have quite small marketshare,
<walterbender> I think there is a line between using Sugar in the name and referring to Sugar in the product
<cjb> walterbender: that makes sense
<SeanDaly> I'd like a program to do joint marketing, and there could be different logo for distros
<SeanDaly> I'd be glad if distros talked about Sugar
<walterbender> Soas being an example of the former and Trisquel *with* Sugar being the latter
<SeanDaly> right now openSUSE does, but that's about it
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I think FSF would help us promote Trisquel with Sugar
<SeanDaly> walterbender: taking into account weakness of brand perception of distros,
<SeanDaly> startups are taking the approach we have, to brand as separate product
<SeanDaly> e.g. Jolicloud
<walterbender> karenesq: would Triquel need permission from Mozilla to say Trisquel with Firefox?
<SeanDaly> since boots up and underlying distro not visible
<cjb> walterbender: I'm sure
<SeanDaly> But, Sugar as a desktop option perceived a bit differently
<walterbender> cjb: if so, then maybe the pre-approval is appropriate
<cjb> .. but I'm not a lawyer, and we have one, so I should be quiet :)
<bernie> walterbender: Mozilla has one of the strictest trademark policies in the open source world.
<walterbender> SeanDaly: ^firefox^gnome
<SeanDaly> mozilla has topnotch marketing, but doesn't have our problem
<cjb> bernie: yeah, that's why I felt so sure.
<bernie> walterbender: they forced debian to rename Firefox to Iceweasel
<bernie> cjb: lol ;-)
<karenesq> walterbender: well there are two questions there, 1) would it be permitted under their policy and 2) even if it isn't, is it still permitted under trademark law - you can use a mark if you're factually referring to a product
<bernie> walterbender: they shouldn't be imitated, I think. I'm more inclined in following the Linux Foundation permissive guidelines
<karenesq> it's called "nominative use"
<cjb> bernie: yes, we're not proposing adopting Mozilla's use
<cjb> bernie: we're proposing that ", with Sugar" or ", sweetened by Sugar" (e.g.) would be preapproved uses -- you don't have to ask us.
<karenesq> so saying X with Y is much closer to nominative use than some of the formulations you are talking about, but if Y is a modified version, then the answer would likely to be that there's no permission to do that
<walterbender> well, I think we need to start working on some guidelines where we articulate where our comfort level lies so there is some degree of predictability in the decision-making process
<cjb> (but that other uses wouldn't, you'd have to ask)
<SeanDaly> our key problem is that desktop marketing Gnome, KDE is not good (worse than distros even I'm afraid)
<karenesq> I think in this instance, you'd have to really decide what you're comfortable with, what you think is right, and we'll draft the policy around it
<walterbender> for those modified cases...
<cjb> SeanDaly: I think this is a consequence of people not caring much about which desktop they're running :)
<SeanDaly> whereas, Sugar can actually pull along the distros
<karenesq> if you're talking about modified cases only, then we had this idea about "substantially unmodified"
<walterbender> we need to give people guidance re where/how they can make modifications and still expect to get approval
<walterbender> or not
<SeanDaly> karenesq: modified is at two levels: technical, and marketing
<walterbender> karenesq: well what does substantially mean?
<karenesq> SeanDaly: but I'm actually talking about the product itself, so it's really technical
<walterbender> karenesq: is adding one non-free driver substantial?
<walterbender> flash?
<karenesq> we called substantially unmodified as: built from the source code provided by the Sugar Labs project, possibly with minor modifications 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
<SeanDaly> walterbender: i was about to cite that example
<cjb> walterbender: I think we can't regulate people adding software that isn't ours
<satellit> sugar with ppa install of sugar?
<cjb> walterbender: if someone installs Flash, we don't have a claim over whether that's okay, because we didn't write Flash
<cjb> but maybe I'm wrong
<karenesq> we can specifically say that adding of nonfree drivers is a substantial modification
<walterbender> cjb: not control them doing it... control them calling the result Sugar
<karenesq> we did say that changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution was considered substantially UNmodified
<walterbender> karenesq: this is exactly the kind of guidance I think we need to spell out in advance as much as possible
<walterbender> so people can then know to ask for a waiver or know not to expect to be able to use the Sugar branding
<walterbender> but now we are back to the remix question.
<SeanDaly> karenesq: nonfree drivers an issue too; for example, to boot a netbook successfully, tempting to include nonfree wifi chip drivers, but that's a no-no
<walterbender> once there is a "substantial change" at what point is it no longer even a remix?
<walterbender> satellit: Am I correct in that openSUSE has a *very* strick remix policy?
<karenesq> walterbender: agreed, these are largely policy decisions for you all to make in conjunction with your marketing strategy. we can write up the policy to reflect it. I doubt we'll be taking a restrictive route that gets us too close to restricting that nominative use
<SeanDaly> walterbender: when I referred to "certain other conditions", I meant that we can elect to withdraw use of remix logo
<SeanDaly> for a project
<bernie> karenesq: question: we registered the trademark "Sugar Labs" and we say that we make no claim on "Labs" alone. Does it mean that we have some rights on "Sugar" alone, at least when it refers to educational software?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: but I think the vagueness is a problem...
<karenesq> SeanDaly: yeah, I get that, but it sounds like we've got the opportunity to make up terminology and labels to describe those situations, no?
<SeanDaly> karenesq: yes, sure
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I think we want to be as clear as possible from the get-go.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: need to be brief while typing, but i can draft a policy to look at & discuss
<SeanDaly> with examples
<walterbender> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Feature_SoaS_customization is a nice example of where one might make mods to SoaS
<SeanDaly> totally agree it needs to be clear
<karenesq> bernie: that's a good question, and while we don't have a trademark on Sugar alone, use of the word sugar in conjunction with a similar product would infringe on the Sugar Labs mark
<walterbender> we could work on something similar
<walterbender> for marketing
<cjb> (interesting side-conversation happening in #sugar)
<cjb> in short, sdziallas is displeased that we apparently intend to register the name his project uses as a trademark without consulting him.
<SeanDaly> bernie: one of marketing challenges is to raise awareness in context where "sugar" not usually associated with computers
<walterbender> cjb: I wish that the conversation were all in one channel :(
<SeanDaly> so, our marketing is on "sugar labs" and "sugar on a stick"
<CanoeBerry> Thanks everyone for thinking like crazy this morning! Time check: 11am
<cjb> walterbender: I think he didn't want to interrupt
<walterbender> cjb: IMHO, by choosing the Sugar xyz, it became our issue, whether or not we want to be a distro
<SeanDaly> just joined #sugar now
<mchua> There's been quite a backchannel on #sugar.
<cjb> CanoeBerry: I'd like to keep going
<cjb> anyone have to leave?
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: if you have to go, we can end the formal meeting and just continue discussing
<SeanDaly> I have a few minutes
<walterbender> actually, I think we made a lot of progress on the TM issue.
<bernie> karenesq: does that mean that Sugar on a Stick is implicitly a trademark of Sugar Labs, as "Bottle of Coke" would be a trademark of Coca Cola?
<cjb> CanoeBerry: you haven't said much :) any thoughts on this?
<walterbender> with implications to Q3
  • mchua seconds idea of ending formal meeting now, and continuing discussion.
<karenesq> bernie: I think that use of SoaS could very well infringe on the Sugar Labs mark, yes
<bernie> karenesq: thanks.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: my goal would be to have a policy clear enough to let people create while allowing us to protect and nurture the Sugar brand
<CanoeBerry> I am not a lawyer and don't want to be one today, but will read carefully before voting on Christmas Day in exactly a week!
<mchua> I do think we're making good forward progress on the TM issue, I know I'm starting to see other perspectives on the question more clearly, fwiw.
<mchua> SeanDaly: +1, same goal here.
<cjb> would we like to talk about the sdziallas question, of why we're registering a trademark on a community project's name?
<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: hola not sure I will be able to vote anything on Christmas Day
<cjb> the answer of "it has Sugar in it" isn't sufficient, IMO -- there's an infinite number of names that have Sugar in.
<mchua> cjb: is that a discussion that should lead to an in-meeting motion, or a discussion we should talk about outside the meeting so it's clear what motions should come up?
<cjb> yes, we should not meet on Christmas Day.
<cjb> mchua: outside the meeting is fine with me
<walterbender> so we'll end now and continue discussion and not meet on the 25th
<walterbender> or the 1st
<CanoeBerry> Are we meeting Fri Jan 1?
<SeanDaly> cjb: without trademark, no brand building possible
<cjb> how about meeting on a non-Friday, ten
<walterbender> can we meet on the 24th perhaps? so as not to lose momentum?
<cjb> SeanDaly: so we're doing it for his project's benefit?
  • mchua proposes moving next 2 weeks meeting time on Wednesday
<walterbender> mchua: works for me
<SeanDaly> walterbender: possible for me i think, I will be in the mountains
<SeanDaly> wed better for me
<mchua> walterbender: do we need to make a motion?
<CanoeBerry> Wednedays same time are fine.
<cjb> so Wed 23 and Wed 30, same time?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: obviously your presence is important for this topic
<mchua> It looks like we'd have quorum at least.
<walterbender> cjb: +1
<SeanDaly> weds ok for me in principle
<mchua> though I would want everyone for this topic, yeah.
<walterbender> OK. Let's end this formal meeting and keep talking for those who can stick around
<CanoeBerry> Aside: Wedn Evening Dec 30 in Boston we will have a presentor talking about her African deployment (Sao Tome)
<cjb> ok. back to the question I just asked?
<walterbender> just want to let everyone know about http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Transactions
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: can you send me details for the digest?
<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: I've seen that girl's blog she seems amazing
<CanoeBerry> walterbender: yes
<walterbender> cjb: not sure which question. can you repeat it?
<walterbender> but first...
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 11:09.
<meeting> Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/
<cjb> question: why are we registering a trademark on a community project's name?
<cjb> Sean answers: because otherwise marketing is impossible
<cjb> follow-up question: so we're doing it for sdziallas, as a service? is it still his project, or is it ours now? was it his project to start with?
<SeanDaly> cjb "successful" marketing ;-)
<walterbender> cjb: also, because we need to protect our mark and if the community project uses our mark in a way that would confuse, we need to take some action
<cjb> walterbender: I don't understand that answer
<walterbender> cjb: in this case, the action is, hurrah!! how can we help!!?!!
<cjb> will we trademark every community project that has the word Sugar in?
<sdziallas> ah, so you're, without asking me on my input? cool. then I'd like to know how SL will treat the SoaS name (possibly assign it to another distro, if e.g. some team decides that it was necessary)?
<SeanDaly> cjb: that's not the way it works...
<walterbender> cjb: well, as I understand it, every term that uses Sugar in a way that would confuse it with our brand is under the shadow of our mark
<tomeu> cjb: there's trademarks and registered trademarks
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: i want to protect SoaS
<walterbender> cjb: it is a judgment call as to when we add additional trademarks
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: I want, too. and I don't want to lose something between one and two years of my life.
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: same here
<SeanDaly> only one year though ;-)
<SeanDaly> for me
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: if suddenly the openSUSE version became SoaS, I would, though.
<SeanDaly> simply put, i would like any other project which uses the word Sugar in the name to do so with a trademark license from SL
<SeanDaly> and in the scenario you mentioned, I don't see how we could do that
<SeanDaly> without causing confusion concerning your project
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: your answer to the DP's third question implies this, though.
<SeanDaly> whereas, if a project uses another name, and respects certain other conditions to be clarified, they can put a SL remix type logo on it
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: really? how so?
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: as I said on #sugar, this is usually a good summary: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-September/019403.html
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: you wrote: "# Sean Daly SL should reserve the right to determine which distro to associate with SOAS, today Fedora, but possibly another later."
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: I'm not joining that scenario.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: if it's that simple, SLOBs could have decided to agree with Q3 and phrased the TM policy accordingly.
<walterbender> sdziallas: I think we agreed that we wouldn't pull the rug out from under the name of any project (except we need to grant permission to use our trademark)
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: yes, and to protect your time investment, I also said that any change should be either scheduled annually (after SLOBs elections), or
<walterbender> sdziallas: I don't think we have consensus yet on SeanDaly's proposal about a timeout
<sdziallas> walterbender: but you don't have clarity, either.
<sdziallas> walterbender: and I don't want to work on something that I may lose later because somebody turns around.
<SeanDaly> triggered by a serious event, e.g. you not available to work on it (camping in Kazakhstan or whatever ;-)
<sdziallas> (read Greg's e-mail, too: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-September/019403.html)
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: then it could be discussed jointly.
<walterbender> personally, I think it is something that should be negotiated as part of the licensing in the case of the term Sugar, but completely up to the project when the name Sugar is not used
<sdziallas> walterbender: I don't think I plan to "apply" for anything by writing a page-long paper.
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: there are two sides to it
<walterbender> sdziallas: we are having this discussion to both reach a level of clarity and consensus :)
<SeanDaly> SL could conceivably part ways with SD
<SeanDaly> or, SD could conceivably part ways with SL
<cjb> SD = ?
<SeanDaly> i hope neither
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: I think I'm reasonable enough to agree at that point (if I should be camping in Kazakhstan - LOL, btw).
<cjb> oh, Sebastian
<SeanDaly> cjb: "Sebastian"
<cjb> SeanDaly: I thought you were talking about yourself in the third person :)
<SeanDaly> cjb: i do that too sometimes ;-)
<sdziallas> hehe ;)
<walterbender> sdziallas: I don't think the process involves writing papers, but I think there has to be a process when the term Sugar is used
<SeanDaly> cjb: and yes, seandaly could part ways with SL too
<SeanDaly> not that I'd want to ;-)
<sdziallas> walterbender: then you could have just agreed to Q3.
<sdziallas> walterbender: really, everybody's mentioning good intentions. but then just go ahead and don't prevent me from doing work.
<walterbender> sdziallas: well, personally, I do, but that decision is not made yet.
<mchua> There's the parallel construct - sdziallas, if you decide to call your project something else (fork and work under the name "Distro of Awesomeness," or something) then SL can't do anything about it.
<sdziallas> walterbender: tomeu apparently does, too. but that doesn't count.
<sdziallas> walterbender: single people saying something doesn't give clarity.
<sdziallas> mchua: and I'm going to do that, if needed.
<tomeu> sdziallas: I asked you before: do you think the discussion today has been a waste of time and should have just jumped straight to voting?
<walterbender> sdziallas: well, that is two votes so far... counts for something :)
<sdziallas> tomeu: on Q3? after phrasing a motion, it wouldn't have been too hard to vote.
<sdziallas> walterbender: heh.
<mchua> sdziallas: And I think that may actually be what we need - though I would hope it would be a temporary situation.
<tomeu> sdziallas: not too hard, but the discussion that happened wasn't worth it?
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: I can assure you i have put time in thinking through the groundwork, while protecting and nurturing the Sugar brand and SoaS
<sdziallas> then why doesn't everybody just +1 that thing and moves on to thinking about TM policies?
<mchua> sdziallas: We have a deadlock right now, but you have the option of sidestepping that deadlock and growing your project under your terms for a while.
<sdziallas> I don't see why saying that SoaS refers to the current iteration (SoaS-Fedora) would have conflicted with what has been stated.
<SeanDaly> mchua: not sure there is a deadlock, I've been ready to vote since Day 1 on that topic, as a dozen mails to the list attest :D
<cjb> yeah, I'd be happy to vote on that one removed from trademark policy, too
<cjb> the point is, though, that our opinion wouldn't be legally enforceable without trademark policy
<tomeu> ok, why not start a vote right now in the ml?
<mchua> I was about to say.
<cjb> (this matters more to some people than others.)
<sdziallas> cjb: that wouldn't prevent me from doing work, though :)
<SeanDaly> cjb: and the policy has to be crystal clear
<tomeu> cjb: hmm, I thought it would be legally enforceable, just unfair for people wanting to work with us because wouldn't know the rules
<mchua> cjb: You know what, you're right. This *shouldn't* block on trademark policy.
<cjb> mchua: :)
<mchua> What I think I was afraid of was the trademark question getting dropped because we had a policy without trademark-ness that worked.
<mchua> cjb: if that makes sense.
<mchua> cjb: I think we can decide the question separate from trademark, and it's something that would unblock sdziallas et al immediately, *and* I think we also have to keep on working on the trademark stuff because that's what will give us a long-term, solid, legally-backed-up solution.
<cjb> sure
<sdziallas> mchua: though I don't own a SLOBs-hat, it makes sense to me :)
<cjb> perhaps we should propose an off-meeting vote
<cjb> if someone can come up with a motion to answer the question
<mchua> let's try to come up with a motion now.
<SeanDaly> what exactly is blocked?
<cjb> SeanDaly: sdziallas doesn't know whether he wants to continue working with us, because we seem unwilling to commit to his project, because we aren't telling other people that they shouldn't use his project's name for something different, AIUI.
<walterbender> SeanDaly: yeah. I am confused, but perhaps mchua's motion will clarify things
<cjb> (and, because it's taken us like half a year to respond to his attempt to get it to do this, he's somewhat paranoid that we aren't going to.)
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: you've got some heavy hitters in your corner, your know ;-)
<sdziallas> cjb: that's an awesome summary!
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: hehe ;)
<SeanDaly> I mean, imagine how I would feel if SL didn't "commit" to SoaS - I'd have to scrap my whole marketing strategy
<walterbender> cjb: well, I think we did respond to his concerns by establishing a DP, but that didn't work... and once we dissovlved the DP, we've been pretty quick to tackle these questions. already 2 resolved and close to consensus on the 3rd
<SeanDaly> walterbender: actually I have noting a list of recommendations for reinforcing effectiveness of a DP
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: yes, but by SoaS I think I meant the current one, not some other distro being branded as such.
<cjb> walterbender: agreed; we did what our governance said we should do.
<cjb> walterbender: I still feel like we've failed somewhat in failing to arrive at an answer to this, though. (i.e. maybe our governance rules weren't good enough, or we didn't push hard enough to carry them out.)
<cjb> but it's a small point. just saying; I think the ultimate responsibility for failing to answer this question so far lies with us.
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: I cannot imagine a scenario where i would want to switch. What i would like to see is more Fedora marketing support for Sugar though that's a different topic
<tomeu> I think we should have pushed harder the DP
<mchua> I think we had to go through this pain once, for *some* decision, though, so we fix things so that it's never this painful for another topic.
<mchua> This just happened to be the thing that uncovered the bug.
<cjb> yeah, we were clearly going to have this problem the first time we used a DP, regardless of what the DP was about.
<SeanDaly> mchua: yes, DP foundered but was valuable governance lesson
  • sdziallas nods...
<SeanDaly> top of my list for DP improvement: they elect a rapporteur and deadlines are set
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I tried to set a deadline but I wasn't aggressive enough about it :(
<SeanDaly> rapporteur = first among equals, chairman if you like, but who has responsibility for followup
<SeanDaly> walterbender: don't worry, as i say lesson learned - in fact i've been studying the UK Iraq war decision commission for inspiration
<walterbender> mchua: were you going to make a motion (for discussion purposes)?
<mchua> walterbender: I don't have one, but can take a stab at it if it'd help (I thought others might have a draft.)
<mchua> SeanDaly: ...and wow, I'd actually love to see those too - anything particular you're reading that's been really helpful?
  • mchua will try to draft some motions, braindumping, plz join.
<SeanDaly> I think we had a breakthrough on Q2 by resetting the question with policy position: "SL encourages distros"
<cjb> let's start with the most obvious motion:
<cjb> MOTION: Q3: Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution, so that it can be marketed effectively.
<SeanDaly> mchua: well, in the newspapers :D
<cjb> any suggestions/improvements on that?
<SeanDaly> mchua: Brown said not for blaming, but Blair will be before the Lords and the chairman announced that they will communicate findings
<walterbender> cjb: sounds good to me.
<SeanDaly> cjb: there's that caveat of mine which means "reserved by SL at SL's discretion"
<walterbender> cjb: I think we may want to add something about what we would expect of other distros want to do a LiveUSB image with Sugar
<cjb> in that case, does anyone disagree with the motion such that they would vote no on it? (if so, I'd like to talk more about it.)
<SeanDaly> which sounds arbitrary, but
<cjb> SeanDaly: I think that was implied already -- maybe:
<SeanDaly> is designed to protect both sides if SD leaves Sl or SL leaves SD
<cjb> MOTION: Q3: Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution, so that it can be marketed effectively.
<cjb> (added "by Sugar Labs")
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I think that would have to be covered under the terms by which SL "licenses" the term SoaS
<cjb> walterbender: please, the question's complicated enough already :)
  • mchua scraps 2-word draft, rejoins conversation, this is coming up with a motion way better than my lack of ability to write one. :)
<SeanDaly> walterbender: precisely, which is why I put time into thinking up a policy proposal
<walterbender> cjb: Agreed. I would make it a separate statement/motion
<sdziallas> cjb: that makes sense to me, too. I don't have a problem with SL owning the SoaS brand (in fact, I'd encourage it, I guess) - I just don't want to be left...
<cjb> it's definitely good that we're coming up with a trademark policy
<cjb> but it will take a lot of time to finish that policy, in my opinion, because the edge cases are very complicated
<walterbender> cjb: yes...
<mchua> +1
<cjb> mchua: walterbender: SeanDaly: rough idea of whether you're +1 on the motion I just repeated, if you don't mind?
<SeanDaly> cjb: not sure it will take that much time. As I say i have thought through scenarios.
<cjb> SeanDaly: the problem is that we might not all agree with you :)
<walterbender> but as to your motion, I am in agreement (seconded) and we could circulate it to the board by email
<cjb> (for example, I don't agree that all uses of Sugar must be manually approved)
<cjb> walterbender: any reason not to do that on iaep@?
<mchua> cjb: "until such time as the trademark decision is settled, when this question will be revisited"?
<SeanDaly> cjb: no can't agree unless SL has flexibility of marketing
<cjb> (since it would be public if we did it in a meeting)
<walterbender> cjb: It should go on IAEP with a [SLOBS] tag
<cjb> mchua: questions can always be revisited later
<cjb> there's no need to append "unless we change our mind" to every motion we make
<SeanDaly> and that's coming from a position of wanting to protect sdz's time and effort investment
<cjb> walterbender: good idea
<cjb> shall I do that now?
<mchua> cjb: I know, but I want to make sure this comes up again after we settle the trademark stuff.
<mchua> (which might be months from now)
<mchua> to make sure they're compatible
<SeanDaly> cjb: yes, but not fair to sdz for us to change our mind as easily as we vote on sthing
<mchua> and maybe wording that into the motion is not the way to do it
<cjb> mchua: can you do that without putting it in the motion, or do you think we need to put it in?
<walterbender> cjb: I think it is fine. I think separately, we need to discuss the terms of the SoaS license...
<walterbender> cjb: which is where we may not have consensus... specifically in regard to the process of termination
<mchua> cjb: I can't think of a better way to make sure the dependency-check is triggered, but I'm open to alternatives.
<cjb> SeanDaly: it's true, but I can't think of a way to encode that. Whether or not we're governing well should be decided by how willing we are to stick to our decisions, I suppose.
<cjb> walterbender: that's why I'm leaving that out of the motion for now, yeah.
<mchua> cjb: basically, along the lines of what SeanDaly said, I'd like to give sdziallas a little more "and you don't have to worry about this again until *this one specific thing* happens, we won't pull this out from under you earlier for another reason."
<SeanDaly> cjb: no, my idea was to formalize conditions of trademark license termination
<cjb> (i.e. if we *do* change our mind quickly, I suggest that everyone votes us off the board and finds people who are willing to work out how they feel about something before voting on it.)
<cjb> mchua: maybe we should ask sdziallas what he wants
<cjb> we can vote on the motion I gave now
  • sdziallas is a bit confused by now.
<cjb> or we can try to come up with a set of rules for when we might change our mind
<cjb> and work out whether we're actually constrained to stick with the rules we make up
<SeanDaly> cjb: I did that 3 months ago in the lists
<sdziallas> so here's the thing:
<cjb> (I think I'd rather let that stuff happen out of band, personally.)
<sdziallas> *if* there's a SoaS project inside SL...
<sdziallas> (which I'll finally try to really establish with v3)
<sdziallas> ...I think the question of which distro it's based on can be delegated there.
<sdziallas> so for example if I suddenly stop leading it because of time constraints, somebody else can very well take it.
<SeanDaly> MOTION: Q3: "Sugar on a Stick" is considered a Sugar labs ttrademark. Sugar Labs will offer a license for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution under mutually agreed terms, so that it can be marketed effectively.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: I don't think it moves us ahead.
<cjb> SeanDaly: see, that makes it a lot more complicated than it was before.
<walterbender> sdziallas: this may be splitting hairs, but I think where we are heading is that SL will license the name to you for your Fedora project and we will work with you to promote it.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: that's the current state, except that it's not yet registered.
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: no?
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: ^^
<cjb> sdziallas: there's a theory that it's the current state simply because the name has the word Sugar on it
<sdziallas> walterbender: that makes sense.
<cjb> sdziallas: which means that it's covered by the Sugar mark.
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: Karen has said twice that it is a defensible trademark under law, and to boot is registereing it.
<sdziallas> cjb: heh. ;)
<mchua> SeanDaly: I think that's where we're headed, but until we have a trademark and that license written and ready to offer, I don't think we can pass that motion.
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I thought we would make the license assignment be a separate discussion/motion
<cjb> (we also haven't voted on whether to license that term, and I want us to.)
<mchua> SeanDaly: I think we need a temporary "yes, use the name, it's yours" fix in the meantime.
<cjb> s/license/register/
<cjb> mchua +1
<SeanDaly> walterbender: i'd much rather, but cjb's draft Q3 motion I can't agree to
<cjb> SeanDaly: but why not?
<SeanDaly> mchua: that's how it is already (cf. press releases)
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: no, a press release is not clear.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: because marketing can *decide* what I writes its press releases about.
<cjb> SeanDaly: my motion already says that the permission to use the term is coming from Sugar Labs; it just leaves the fact that there are going to be conditions around that implicit, because we don't know what they are.
<SeanDaly> cjb: marketing involves flexibility... "reserves" implies permanence
<cjb> I don't think it does
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: :D ii could write the earth is flat, but that marketing wouldn't build the Sugar brand
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: but you could promote no-matter-what-distro as SoaS.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: it would still build the Sugar brand.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: but knock me out.
<sdziallas> (in a press release, that is)
<walterbender> sdziallas: well, if we license the term to you, we cannot market any distro as SoaS
<walterbender> sdziallas: but we could market any distro's LiveUSB efforts
<sdziallas> walterbender: that is more than fair.
<cjb> SeanDaly: is there a small change in the wording that you would agree to?
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: yes, but why would I want to? as stated previously it could be atough call if the cavalry comes over the hill with 25 developers, but remember my post where I talked about being fair to you in that scenario?
<cjb> SeanDaly: without referencing the existence of things that haven't happened yet, like SoaS trademarks?
  • cjb is frustrated that we can't agree on anything simple. :/
<walterbender> sdziallas: and I would argue that the terms of the license should include some way for a mutually agreed to qualification of the name... which may take more discussion.
<SeanDaly> cjb: we mustn't confuse mark defensibility with registration
<walterbender> but pure SoaS would be yours.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: I don't say you would. But this whole discussion has taken so long, and the real commitment to decisions hasn't taken place, yet.
<sdziallas> walterbender: that makes some sense.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: and I don't see why.
<mchua> cjb: I think we're getting there.
<cjb> SeanDaly: okay, whatever. but can you agree to something like using a different word instead of "reserve"?
<mchua> cjb: we're finding the common ground we can agree on.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: heh, I do. somewhat. anyway.
<mchua> (slowly. and it's small common ground. but still.)
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: put another way, I made my decision a long time ago, and I want to be sure the investment you (and I and others) put in best raises awareness of Sugar
<cjb> We could settle this today, if we can just find the right words.
<mchua> So, I think the latest wording of the motion is:
<mchua> Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution, so that it can be marketed effectively.
<sdziallas> cjb: +1
<mchua> It sounded like SeanDaly had concerns about the word "reserved" because it implies permanence?
<cjb> mchua: yeah
  • mchua reads up to see who ctually said that
<cjb> that's right
<mchua> s/ctually/ctually
<mchua> aaach
<mchua> actually.
<mchua> I can't type.
<mchua> Yep, that was SeanDaly. Sean, what word would you want to use there instead?
<cjb> I guess one way to be explicit about the lack of permanence is to tack on a sentence about how we'll follow up with a trademark policy.
<cjb> like:
<SeanDaly> MOTION: Q3: Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" referring to the SoaS-Fedora distribution is actively promoted by Sugar Labs, and we ask the community to not use the name while our trademark policy is ironed out?
<mchua> Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution so that it can be marketed effectively, until such time when a trademark policy, agremeent, and process is put in place, at which point SoaS will be the first project to go through that process?
<cjb> I can get behind that.
<mchua> (My wording is ugly, but that's more or less the thought I'm trying to put out.)
<mchua> sdziallas?
<sdziallas> mchua: that'd be fine, I think. well, let me re-read.
<mchua> SeanDaly?
<cjb> SeanDaly: walterbender: mchua: would you vote aye on that?
<sdziallas> mchua: Go for it.
  • cjb would
<mchua> I'd vote aye on the motion I just proposed, though I'd hope nobody ever uses it as a writing sample from me. :)
<mchua> sdziallas: if that motion were, hypothetically, to pass, would you have any other outstanding concerns, or would this pretty much unblock you?
<mchua> SeanDaly: same question to you.
<cjb> mchua: if SeanDaly's in agreement with that wording, could you send (since you wrote it ;-) it to iaep@ with [SLOBS] in the subject line, for us to vote on off-meeting?
<sdziallas> mchua: I think it would unblock me, hoping that nobody turns around when it comes to the concrete trademark policy.
<cjb> mchua: you get to tidy up the writing if you want to in the process, too, although I think it's fine :)
<walterbender> sdziallas: I think the tone of the TM discussion is such that it won't lead to any surprises
<SeanDaly> Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution so that Sugar can be marketed effectively, until such time when a trademark policy, agreement, and process is put in place: we expect SoaS to be the first project to go through that process.
<cjb> SeanDaly: looks good
<sdziallas> walterbender: ah, okay ;)
<cjb> s/when/that/
<cjb> SeanDaly: would you vote aye?
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: why that change there?
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: which change?
<cjb> oh, "will be" went to "we expect"
<cjb> I think "will be" was fine
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: that change (^^)
<cjb> sdziallas: I think he was mainly aiming at grammar/readability
<cjb> since the other one had a lot of commas
<SeanDaly> well, as RMS has told me, can't predict the future
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: I don't give much about RMS, hehe ;)
<cjb> SeanDaly: as someone else said, "the best way to predict the future is to create it"
<sdziallas> cjb: expect is less strong than will be, I guess.
<cjb> we can predict how we will create and manage our trademark policy
<cjb> so I don't think "will be" is unreasonable
<cjb> but I also don't think this should hold up the motion; I don't think it has any real-world effect
<mchua> SeanDaly: Wow, that sounds much better. I'd be behind that.
<cjb> so I guess I'll go with whichever gets us to mchua's e-mail out to iaep@ faster
<mchua> Either with "we expect" or "will be," I don't care.
  • sdziallas nods
<SeanDaly> well, since i can't imagine another project jumping in front, let's stick with "will be"
<cjb> especially since I have a major software release to make today :)
<sdziallas> cjb: oh :)
  • SeanDaly this is what Copenhagen is like
<mchua> Ok, I'll send "will be."
<cjb> SeanDaly: thanks
<cjb> mchua: GO GO GO
<mchua> The final wording: Yes, "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution so that Sugar can be marketed effectively, until such time when a trademark policy, agreement, and process is put in place: SoaS will be the first project to go through that process.
<SeanDaly> ok for me
<mchua> sending to slobs@, iaep@ with [SLOBs] tag.
<SeanDaly> have to go now
  • sdziallas says thanks to everybody :)
<mchua> SENT!
<mchua> cjb, SeanDaly, walterbender, bernie, tomeu, CanoeBerry - go!
<walterbender> ciao mchua
<walterbender> I'll include this discussion as part of the meeting log...
<tomeu> do we have a happy sdziallas now?
<sdziallas> tomeu: yes, you've :)
<tomeu> \o/
<tomeu> victory!
<sdziallas> yes!