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

Re: ditching the official use logo?

Thanks to all participants on this thread thus far.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:05:46PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:52:18 +0200, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > or other "official" documentes should carry the official logo, so
> > their reproduction and modification is not legal.
> I completely agree with such a point.

All in all, we seem to have people on both camps of "keep it" and "ditch
it", ... as it often happens :-)

The arguments in favor of keeping it seem reasonable in the abstract
but, frankly, all a tad too "theoretical". As a matter of fact we do not
use the restricted logo that much (if at all) in official documents: as
DPL I've signed quite a few of them (letters, certificates, some
contracts, etc.) and I've never used the restricted logo. I also don't
see us doing that anytime soon, because we love free content and we're
naturally *not* inclined to use non-free stuff. Also, there is a
communication backlash if we start using the restricted logo in such
places now, because it is not known, and people will wonder "hey, this
is not the Debian log, what's going on?".

But let's assume for the sake of the argument we want to keep both
logos. (Maybe nowadays we're not yet convinced it's pointless to keep
the restricted one, but maybe we'll be in a few years from now if our
pattern of usage for it won't change *g*.)

How about the attached patch?

In hindsight, it doesn't change the logos, but just improve our
communications about them. It clarifies that our preferred logo is the
open use one, and call the other for what it is, a "restricted logo" for
basically internal use only. It also explicitly encourages people to use
the open use logo, when referring to Debian.

Would such a patch constitute an acceptable compromise?

Thanks in advance for your comments,
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Index: index.wml
RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/logos/index.wml,v
retrieving revision 1.65
diff -u -r1.65 index.wml
--- index.wml	30 Sep 2012 13:51:14 -0000	1.65
+++ index.wml	13 Oct 2012 14:11:52 -0000
@@ -1,14 +1,12 @@
 #use wml::debian::template title="Debian logos" BARETITLE=true
 #include "$(ENGLISHDIR)/logos/index.data"
-<p>Although Debian can be obtained for free and will always remain
-that way, events such as the problem with the ownership of the
-term &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; have shown that Debian needs to protect its
-property from any use which could hurt its reputation.</p>
-<p>Debian has decided to create two logos: <a href="#official-use">one
-logo</a> is for official Debian use; the <a href="#open-use">other
-logo</a> falls under an open use type license.</p>
+<p>Debian has two logos. The <a href="#open-use">official logo</a> (also known
+  as "open use logo") contains the well-known Debian <q>swirl</q> and best
+  represents the visual identity of the Debian Project. A separate, <a
+  href="#restricted-use">restricted-use logo</a>, also exists for use by the
+  Debian Project and its members only. To refer to Debian, please prefer the
+  open use logo.</p>
@@ -51,11 +49,11 @@
 <col width="35%" />
-<th colspan="2"><a name="official-use">Debian Official Use Logo</a></th>
+<th colspan="2"><a name="restricted-use">Debian Restricted Use Logo</a></th>
-<h3>Debian Official Use Logo License</h3>
+<h3>Debian Restricted Use Logo License</h3>
 <p>Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest</p>
@@ -74,7 +72,7 @@
 	<li>We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product</li>
-<p>Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts,
+<p>Permission has been given to use the restricted logo on clothing (shirts,
 hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: