Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the GIMP contests specify that you need to use GIMP for
creating the image. But you're right, there's really no way to check
that.
Also, there's a -- perhaps subtle -- difference using GIMP exclusively
and using it as but one of a variety of
Before I'm going to confuse people: I didn't mean to start the whole
voting procedure this soon; I should have worded that better.
After asking around a bit and seeing the reactions here it looks like
most people would like to see a new logo. The license is also
troublesome (and very hard to find
I'd like to thank Wichert for taking on this thankless task.
I'd also like to ask that we set strict criteria for what constitutes a
logo. I don't feel like going back through the archives, but the criteria
I remember off the top of my head are:
Works in B+W (the official version may, of
On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with James Treacy's observation that we will probably need two
logos: one logo with a liberal license that people can just freely, and
another, more restricted logo for things like official CD's and so.
To phrase
Why don't we officially not have an official logo?
If 5 years from now, everybody likes a certain unofficial logo
(ie. Debian equivalent of the BSD daemon), we could go with that.
Cheers,
- Jim
On 25-Jan-99, 21:11 (CST), Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. It's creates a first-class and second-class logo.
It creates, of course. I just love looking like an illiterate
boob in front of several thousand people...
Steve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 26-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snipped the original]
I'm all for this, lock stock and barrel.
To select the winner we should form a small group of developers to
select a top-10 from all submissions and use those as the other options
for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 26-Jan-99 James A. Treacy wrote:
I'd like to thank Wichert for taking on this thankless task.
I'd also like to ask that we set strict criteria for what constitutes a
logo. I don't feel like going back through the archives, but the criteria
I remember
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 09:11:47PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with James Treacy's observation that we will probably need two
logos: one logo with a liberal license that people can just freely, and
another,
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, James A. Treacy wrote:
I'd like to thank Wichert for taking on this thankless task.
I'd also like to ask that we set strict criteria for what constitutes a
logo. I don't feel like going back through the archives, but the criteria
I remember off the top of my head are:
I agree with James Treacy's observation that we will probably need two
logos: one logo with a liberal license that people can just freely, and
another, more restricted logo for things like official CD's and so.
This seems like a logical solution. Having the official Debian logo
could
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with James Treacy's observation that we will probably need two
logos: one logo with a liberal license that people can just freely, and
another, more restricted logo for
Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
1. We have to agree on *two* logos :-).
No, we have to agree on a *set* of logos: we simply request that each
submission consists of two logos.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with James Treacy's observation that we will probably need two
logos: one logo with a liberal license that people can just
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Daniel Martin wrote:
If we are going to have a gimp.org done contest, I would like to see
that the rules allow people to use things that are not gimp, but that
are DFSG free software. I find the command-line pnm tools very useful
in manipulating images, and it would be
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst I have no objections to such a change in rules, I am baffled that
anyone could prefer xpaint to gimp, even for drawing straight lines and
ellipses.
gimp won't run on smaller machines.
Also, there's Rick Hohensee's caligraphic patch for (if I recall
On 26-Jan-99 Randy Edwards wrote:
One question I had was out of the two options you list above, which
category do you see our present logo falling into: the liberal license or the
official logo? Or would this new logo contest be used to choose logos for
both categories?
Because of the
Previously Jules Bean wrote:
Whilst I have no objections to such a change in rules, I am baffled that
anyone could prefer xpaint to gimp, even for drawing straight lines and
ellipses.
Why is this a change in rules? I've never seen it written anywhere that
you are obliged to use the gimp. I
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jules Whilst I have no objections to such a change in rules, I am
Jules baffled that anyone could prefer xpaint to gimp, even for
Jules drawing straight lines and ellipses.
Wichert Why is this a change in rules? I've never
19 matches
Mail list logo
