Re: New logo strategy
Jules Bean <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman <email@example.com> 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 creates a first-class and second-class logo.
> A 'submission' to the contest is a pair of logos. Linked to each
> stylistically, one of them says 'official' or something.
Or, we could have a contest to decide a basic logo and then design a
"variation on the theme" ourselves for the official logo.
Actually, I kind of liked cap'n blue eye; then again, I also liked the
platypus more than a penguin. Actually, hmmm - a Debian platypus...
If we are going to have a gimp.org done contest, I would like to see
that the rules allow people to use things that are not gimp, but that
are DFSG free software. I find the command-line pnm tools very useful
in manipulating images, and it would be nice if I could use them. It
would also be nice if I could use xpaint, or something else that
allows me to draw simple straight lines and ellipses - freehand
drawing with the mouse is very difficult.