Re: Debian logo & its license
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:54:14AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already
> > the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the task
> > and have an identity of our own?
>
> Heh, nobody seems to be able to spot that :)
Despite your funny comment I think this is a very serious concern. Debian is
independent enough from both GNU, and Linux, that the Logo should not refer
to either of these animals. We have our own message, too. We are
constructors. We take the work of thousands of people and put them together.
Shouldn't this be reflected by the logo, too?
> > * A penguin is submitting the wrong message in some other way, too:
> > The Debian GNU/Hurd port is coming along quite nicely, and although
> > it uses some linux driver code, it is quite different from Linux in
> > several aspects. Debian is the distribution with most ports, and
> > even non-Linux ports, too, now. Do we really want to restrict
> > ourselves and our image to Linux for an uncertain period of time?
>
> No, but since almost nobody seems to see the current logo is actually a
> penguin I didn't really worry about that. It even seemed somewhat
> appriopriate in that a Debian did begin as a Linux-only distribution.
> There is no shame in showing your roots imho.
Certainly there isn't. But isn't GNU our real root? Think about it, and then
let's drop this idea about GNU, Linux or GNU/Linux. It is not appropriate.
To avoid confusion, something independent would be favourable. This is also
to make Debian a community. We need something to identify each other, to
seperate us from the whole Linux movement, as a distinct entity _inside_ it.
This is not an unfriendly seperation, don't get me wrong. Just something
that shows: here starts and ends Debian, the best free operating system.
If someone identifies it as a chicken or not is irrelevant. In the
context, everyone will admit that it is meant to be a penguin.
> > * The logo was imposed on the developers. We now have a formalilzation of
> > decision making, the constitution. It should be applied to this (partly)
> > political decision.
>
> That's true. It's also true that most favourite `logos' were not good
> logos. Logo criteria are really important.
Yes. This is why I am not sure that voting is the right way to choose a
logo. Probably a group of elected persons should make the decision, and only
the decision gets ratified. Probably this group should elect a couple (two
or three) and the vote should be among them.
> > * Let's show some *taste* :)
>
> Heh, that always makes for interesting discussions. I'm quite sure you
> wouldn't like my taste in music, but I'm really happy with it :)
Hehe. But still: The logo could be improved. This is certainly a personal
opinion only, but ask yourself what image the Logo will put on Debian. Will
CD vendors use the logo on the Debian CD? Is it professional enough?
If nobody uses the logo because it is ugly, then we can choose whatever logo
we want. It will be pretty useless, though.
Note that we can't do much marketing on our own, so we can't promote our
logo=image ourselve. We have to rely on third party vendors. Because we make
free software, we can't enforce our logo. If we choose a good logo, though,
people will like to see it, and vendors will use it.
Until yet, I still have to see a CD/magazine whatever which uses Chicken
Blue Eye.
> > First, I don't think it would take too long. Secondly, do we really want to
> > rush this important issue?
>
> Letting hundreds of developers choose one logo in a multitude of
> submissions sounds like a time-consuming process. We would probably need
> a scheme to elimiate logo's, then revote, eliminate more, etc. to do it
> fairly.
I think this is the wrong approach. See above for an alternate proposal. We
could vote that a small group of interested people investigate the entries
and pick some winners. Among the small elected number, the rest of the
developers could vote on.
> > About getting submissions: I think a Gimp contest would be appropriate, this
> > would lead to better contributions.
>
> Iff we decide that we want a new logo, then I agree that would be the
> best approach. It would also demonstrate how open we are.
Ok.
> > I don't understand "all over again". We have never voted on a logo.
>
> We did in the sense that people could choose their favourite logo on
> Christians page.
Don't remember of THAT! We have seen what came out of this. Nice CD covers,
no logos. It was the wrong approach, and we should learn from the past.
We should reckognize that we may not be good artists and designers after
all, and leave this to the talented people.
> > Why intermix these two issues? Choosing a license and choosing a logo are
> > completely different pair of shoes. They can be voted on seperately.
>
> Geez, it seems you have issues with everything I said. Looks like I
> succeeded in starting a discussion again though :). I mixed them because
> they are closely related: you can't have one without the other.1
Don't worry. I have just repeated what I said over and over again on this
list, in regular intervalls the last path months. You can look it up in the
archive, my position hasn't changed a bit the last year. The discussion was
postponed every time, because we had to put either hamm or slink or
Bruce^H^H^H^H^H^H^H out of the door.
But nevertheless, we can have a logo license without a logo. And a logo
without a license. Ultimatively, we need both, but we can resolve either
issue independently, so we don't have to rush one or the other.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: