779
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 99:
Line 99: − +
Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Minutes-2010-01-22 (view source)
Revision as of 10:59, 22 January 2010
, 10:59, 22 January 2010→Discussion points
** There is an assumption (or proposal) in the email that trademark usage of all SL marks will be free. Is this something we agree on, and should explicitly state?
** There is an assumption (or proposal) in the email that trademark usage of all SL marks will be free. Is this something we agree on, and should explicitly state?
** When would licensing not be routine, i.e. require consideration before licensing?
** When would licensing not be routine, i.e. require consideration before licensing?
* What formulation(s) of the SL marks should we provide as options? This is the label text - our "circled intel inside sticker", if you will.
** What formulation(s) of the SL marks should we provide as options? This is the label text - our "circled intel inside sticker", if you will.
** What could motivate us to revoke a license?
** What could motivate us to revoke a license?
** What graphical specifications on mark usage do we want to set forth? (must have this much whitespace, must use these colors, must not be distorted, etc) We might just set this as "we want to have graphical specifications," have someone take an action for it, and then vote on that as an amendment later when it's ready.gt
** What graphical specifications on mark usage do we want to set forth? (must have this much whitespace, must use these colors, must not be distorted, etc) We might just set this as "we want to have graphical specifications," have someone take an action for it, and then vote on that as an amendment later when it's ready.gt