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

Re: ditching the official use logo?



I was hoping someone else would chime in (I hate dominating discussions
on MLs, so someone, please cut me off)


On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 04:21:07PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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

I mean, sure. This is something we can change, if we decide to do so.
It's also true this is not currently an active concern.

> 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?".

It's got the swirl in it, I think people will figure it out, if we did
start adopting it on works (yadda yadda, more of what was said before)

> 
> 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?

Looks great to me. Calling it restricted is technically correct, and
well, that's the the best kind of correct.

> 
> 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?

I'm very much happy with the suggested changes. Others?

> 
> Thanks in advance for your comments,
> Cheers.
> -- 
> 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>
>  
>  <hr>
>  
> @@ -51,11 +49,11 @@
>  <col width="35%" />
>  </colgroup>
>  <tr>
> -<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>
>  </tr>
>  <tr>
>  <td>
> -<h3>Debian Official Use Logo License</h3>
> +<h3>Debian Restricted Use Logo License</h3>
>  
>  <p>Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest</p>
>  <ol>
> @@ -74,7 +72,7 @@
>  	<li>We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product</li>
>  </ol>
>  
> -<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
>  profit.</p>
>  </td>




-- 
 .''`.  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


Reply to: