Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 04:21:07PM +0200]: > 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? The patch you propose clearly reflects the "real" situation, so, thanks a lot, it makes me happy :-D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature