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 freely, and > > > another, more restricted logo for things like official CD's and so. > > > To phrase this in another way: we will have a logo that everyone can > > > slap onto their webpage, t-shirts, posters, etc., and a logo that can be > > > used for `official' products, like CD's made using our own iso-images. > > > > Sorry, I think this is a bad idea: > > > > 1. We have to agree on *two* logos :-). > > > > 2. Far more importantly, it fractures the identity of the logo, which > > is one of the major points of *having* a logo. > > > > 3. It creates a first-class and second-class logo. > > Nah. > > A 'submission' to the contest is a pair of logos. Linked to each > stylistically, one of them says 'official' or something.
Or, we could have a contest to decide a basic logo and then design a "variation on the theme" ourselves for the official logo. Actually, I kind of liked cap'n blue eye; then again, I also liked the platypus more than a penguin. Actually, hmmm - a Debian platypus... 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 nice if I could use them. It would also be nice if I could use xpaint, or something else that allows me to draw simple straight lines and ellipses - freehand drawing with the mouse is very difficult.