On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:55:56PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:04:12AM -0400, David Prévot a écrit : > > Le 01/10/2012 06:40, Bart Martens a écrit : > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:27:37PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > >> Note for those who have never looked into this: the "official use" logo > > >> is the one with the bottle. > > > .... > > >> My personal take on it is that we should simply > > >> ditch it, focusing on a single logo (the "open use" one) with a > > >> DFSG-free license, that we do now have. > > > > > > I don't object against ditching the logo with the bottle. I don't object > > > against keeping it around either. Maybe if people want to keep it around for > > > nostalgic reasons it can be kept available on the website as the "former > > > official logo" with a nice story about its history or so. > > > > The www.d.o website use to keep online “archive” content, so I guess it > > would be fine, but I'm not thrilled by the idea to keep non-free content > > online inside our official website, maybe other people will have more > > comments. About the “nice story about its history”, proposals will be > > welcome ;). > > Hello everybody, > > I think it would be good to discontinue the "Debian Official Use Logo" if we > agree that it is causing more problems than it solves. To avoid keeping > non-free material in the current website, maybe it can point instead to the CVS > archive? Then the official logo can be mentionned very briefly, for instance. So, I'm going to try to be the lone voice of dissent here. I think the very non-free logo serves to solve a very careful problem, which is to allow for officiating "exernal" things. Right now, the way I understand it is that you can, in a DFSG and legal way, create a document with the Debian logo & brand, and create a "certificate" that looks to be from Debian, and sell them as some sort of certification from Debian without recourse from the Debian project. I know this is a borderline slimy argument, and I really (REALLY) don't like being on the side of non-free, but I think continuing to assert copyright / non-free conditions on the official use logo won't really cause much more harm. It's not like it's in the archive (correct me if I'm wrong, and if so, we should fix that), or commonly "violated" anyways (whereas the old logo was) Stuff like DD certificiates (I think they already have this, but I've not seen one for a long long times), or other "official" documentes should carry the official logo, so their reproduction and modification is not legal. > > Debian used to have an "official use logo" (see http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/logos/officiallogo-50.jpg > for example), but does not recommend it anymore as its license is not free. > > Cheers, > > -- > Charles Plessy > Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > Archive: [🔎] 20121008135556.GG7634@falafel.plessy.net">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20121008135556.GG7634@falafel.plessy.net > -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature