Re: New logo strategy
On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I agree with James Treacy's observation that we will probably need two
> logos: one logo with a liberal license that people can just freely, and
> another, more restricted logo for things like official CD's and so.
> To phrase this in another way: we will have a logo that everyone can
> slap onto their webpage, t-shirts, posters, etc., and a logo that can be
> used for `official' products, like CD's made using our own iso-images.
Sorry, I think this is a bad idea:
1. We have to agree on *two* logos :-).
2. Far more importantly, it fractures the identity of the logo, which
is one of the major points of *having* a logo.
3. It's creates a first-class and second-class logo.
Quite honestly, I think the logo for a organization built on and around
free software ought to be free. Get a great logo, license it quite
liberally, and stand back. If a few losers misuse it, what's the big
deal? It's enough that the official CD images can be labeled "Debian
Official CD's", they don't need a separate logo.
Other than that, I like your ideas of how to progress. Except that I
like the chicken: it's simple, slightly elegant, and a great logo. And
come on, who could really confuse it with a chicken?