[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 01:15:54PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Hello,
> As I think I've mentioned a couple of times before, we ALREADY HAVE A
> LOGO!  Maybe we want to change it, maybe we don't.  But in any case,
> unless things have changed while I wasn't looking, we don't have a
> LICENSE for the logo, old or new.
> We do NOT need a new logo -- we may want one, but it's not a critical
> need.  A license for our logo IS a critical need.  Yet, somehow, we've
> organized one logo creation contest, and are talking about starting on a
> second one, but we've done NOTHING about the license.  PEOPLE, LET'S
> FOCUS ON WHAT WE NEED FOR A CHANGE!  I know it's a radical notion, but
> still!  :-)

We are focusing on that... in a way.  One of the major problems is the use
of the current license.  The project is split on restricting the logo for
use only in "Official" work (more than 50%) and a more libral license.

I'd like to have a "logo" or some feature that is CLEARLY linked in theme
on my web page (a powered by or optimized for type button) but my web page
is DEFINATLY not 50% or more debian and never will be.  It's my personal
web page.  I could create my own, but then there is no "linked identity"
and that's not worth the work for an unartistic person like me (Joey is
a better artist than I) to try to do.

So... we're tackling several issues at once... a license, a new logo (many
don't like the chicken) and a seperate looser logo.  There are already a 
few draft licenses floating around that I've seen waiting for the time
to enter the fray.

- Darren

P.S.  we can easily extend the license.  I think July would be fine, however.  
We should have the current logo situation solved by then.

Reply to: