Re: The Ugly Logo and the Consequences
"Juergen A. Erhard" <email@example.com> writes:
> Really, I rarely seen something as stupid as this two logo idea (yes,
> I kept my quiet until now... for two reasons: a) I'm not a developer,
> so I ain't really got any say in this anyway, and b) I didn't expect
> the two versions be as different (in beauty) as they now are).
As a developer, I quite agree with you. There was some silly paranoia
running around about how "Evil people" would "abuse" the logo if we
didn't have an "official" version. I still don't see how -- it's not
at *all* the same sort of thing as putting random files from our
archives on a CD, which is the "example" most often cited. Unlike
that supposed example, "logo abuse" would pretty much require actual
malice, not just blithe ignorance.
But the two-license vote won, paranoia and confusion are the order of
the day, and the only hope left for those of us with a smidge of
sanity is the strong probability that the "official" logo will never
be used for anything, and will fade off into obscurity and be
I admit, I am *seriously* tempted to put the stupid^H^H^H^H^Hofficial
logo (whatever it finally turns out to be) on my web page in protest,
to see just what sort of death and dismemberment the project will rain
on my head, but I haven't decided for sure yet. If it fades away, I
probably won't bother. Otherwise, I may try to organize mass protest,
getting as many people as possible to "abuse" the logo in innocuous
ways as a form of civil disobedience.
Some people will tell you (or us) that the issue is settled, so we
shouldn't be discussing it. I think stupidity should be called
stupidity whereever it occurs, even if it is "the voice of the
Chris Waters firstname.lastname@example.org | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or email@example.com | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.