On Saturday 17 August 2002 00:22, Brian D wrote: > ... > The certified -=logo=- [again notice the emphasis on > logo], like the Windows logo or the java logo or the > A++ certified logo or the MCP or any other commercial > logo, is not.
I don't see any direct relationship in your examples as they are all commercial companies who own their content and the rights to do with it as they please. If they want to offer logos to certify and publically validify _their_ respectively owned properties then that is perfectly legit. > Get it ? > logo = commercial > certified = open and free So it seems true then, non-commercial projects who cannot afford the logo will be at a disadvantage compared to those who can. Both lots can be certified but one lot will be percieved as official and that pushes the envelope of acceptability considering the open source nature of the content being declared offically LSB compliant or not, according to a logo that has to paid for. > </end rant> Perhaps I touched a sore spot or you're having a bad day. --markc
