Re: New logo strategy
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 09:11:47PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cs.leidenuniv.nl> 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 :-).
It's actually a good idea, and solves quite a few problems with the
licensing issues.
The "liberal" logo is something cool-looking that says "Debian" in some way,
that everyone can plaster all over CD's, books, web pages, and so on.
The "restricted" logo is more like a certification -- think "Intel Inside"
and "Yes! It works with Netware" here. Visions of little swirlies. It
would only be allowed to appear on official merchandise that is certified to
really be Debian, like official CD's. This one is probably black and white,
and quite simple, and says something like "Certified Debian."
Notice how Novell's logo is quite different from the "Yes!" logo, and how
"Intel Inside" is very different from Intel's logo.
And guys, when worrying about licensing issues, remember that unless we get
these things trademarked, anyone who produces a rather similar looking
certification graphic will be free to use it wherever they want. You can
only use copyright law to sublicense the _exact_ image file and derived
works, NOT similar-looking art. (But if it uses the word "Debian" it's
probably covered under other trademarks. IANAL.)
Have fun,
Avery
Reply to: