Re: New logo strategy
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 tools. -- Raul
Re: New logo strategy
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 course, be in color) Works both with and without text at the bottom (Debian GNU/Linux). You can ignore this point if Debian is an integral part of the logo. Not too detailed so it works in low resolution. I have the feeling I missed something important. If so, I'm sure someone will point out my oversight. :) Jay Treacy
Re: New logo strategy
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's creates a first-class and second-class logo. Quite honestly, I think the logo for a organization built on and around free software ought to be free. Get a great logo, license it quite liberally, and stand back. If a few losers misuse it, what's the big deal? It's enough that the official CD images can be labeled Debian Official CD's, they don't need a separate logo. Other than that, I like your ideas of how to progress. Except that I like the chicken: it's simple, slightly elegant, and a great logo. And come on, who could really confuse it with a chicken? Steve
Re: New logo strategy
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
Re: New logo strategy
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
RE: New logo strategy
-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 official vote. If people want to be in this group please drop me a note, otherwise I'll make a couple of suggestions myself (no, I'm not going to suggest myself). I will suggest you, then. Since you got the ball rolling, you have an interest in see it done. I think you should be one of those to decide on the final contestant logos. - -- = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNq1cwbbps1lIfUYBAQHABgQAip5iRKEf1ziM1LSDf+UluM+XfYltdPZM Z1rUebHXuHxhXQ6SgdBestZdgS+oDt/V5traZczLUFGQuZUhHjdevKoEYNJcbd1r +FuFBaFe+e1MPIVXXTsjLogcK8ziUFsp9zCfAts8PXyB3WUjgJwiavLMX4w8tpxv Z4IdSIgrZOo= =EB95 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: New logo strategy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 26-Jan-99 James A. Treacy wrote: I'd like to thank Wichert for taking on this thankless task. I'd also like to ask that we set strict criteria for what constitutes a logo. I don't feel like going back through the archives, but the criteria I remember off the top of my head are: Works in B+W (the official version may, of course, be in color) Works both with and without text at the bottom (Debian GNU/Linux). You can ignore this point if Debian is an integral part of the logo. Not too detailed so it works in low resolution. I have the feeling I missed something important. If so, I'm sure someone will point out my oversight. :) Easily scaleable would be nice... - -- = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNq1debbps1lIfUYBAQEJdQP/cTVhiP8G8Yh0V/gTl0/yTw2/Celh3NKO gKqVwyP4nU8RX7BTLGRPQQQg7ybZ+8FUbsmnVYB5eVYMPc9429CVWN0pwYhFSu3Y wbpauN7gYqdY1QeJdPZRWNBYThjF6s0fOFD0ZXm0vjT3lIyXrYQusbljGxt8R3lW 5ro6vFEHUN4= =atgs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: New logo strategy
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, 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 :-). It's actually a good idea, and solves quite a few problems with the licensing issues. The liberal logo is something cool-looking that says Debian in some way, that everyone can plaster all over CD's, books, web pages, and so on. The restricted logo is more like a certification -- think Intel Inside and Yes! It works with Netware here. Visions of little swirlies. It would only be allowed to appear on official merchandise that is certified to really be Debian, like official CD's. This one is probably black and white, and quite simple, and says something like Certified Debian. Notice how Novell's logo is quite different from the Yes! logo, and how Intel Inside is very different from Intel's logo. And guys, when worrying about licensing issues, remember that unless we get these things trademarked, anyone who produces a rather similar looking certification graphic will be free to use it wherever they want. You can only use copyright law to sublicense the _exact_ image file and derived works, NOT similar-looking art. (But if it uses the word Debian it's probably covered under other trademarks. IANAL.) Have fun, Avery
Re: New logo strategy
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: Works in B+W (the official version may, of course, be in color) Works both with and without text at the bottom (Debian GNU/Linux). You can ignore this point if Debian is an integral part of the logo. Not too detailed so it works in low resolution. I have the feeling I missed something important. If so, I'm sure someone will point out my oversight. :) It should also not be linux-specific (this is my suggestion) - we do have debian GNU/Hurd you know :) Matthew -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steward of the Cambridge Tolkien Society Selwyn College Computer Support http://www.cam.ac.uk/CambUniv/Societies/tolkien/ http://pick.sel.cam.ac.uk/
Re: New logo strategy
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 perhaps be more generic, thus used to deal with the issue of what happens if Debian eventually becomes largely a hurd distribution or takes some other unknown directional turn in the future. 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? -- Regards,| Why would anyone want to run an operating . | system that is open source and is developed Randy | by hundreds of hackers worldwide? Find out ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | why at http://www.golgotha.net/why-linux/
Re: New logo strategy
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. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/
Re: New logo strategy
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 bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpRfS7epuT9U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New logo strategy
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.
Re: New logo strategy
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 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. 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. Try fiddling with the selection tools, and the 'path' or 'pen' tool. (And use layers lots..) Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/
Re: New logo strategy
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 correctly) xpaint. [Or is there a calligraphic module for the gimp?] -- Raul
Re: New logo strategy
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 current (but expired) logo license, it would fall under the official logo but the contest would offer suggestions for both. -- = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = pgpHNmIVuwtBY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New logo strategy
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 wouldn't even know how to check what tool was used. Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpZN60Bm22KW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New logo strategy
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 seen it written Wichert anywhere that you are obliged to use the gimp. I wouldn't Wichert even know how to check what tool was used. 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. Ben -- Brought to you by the letters S and V and the number 5. Tahiti is not in Europe. Debian GNU/Linux maintainer of Gimp and GTK+ -- http://www.debian.org/ I'm on FurryMUCK as Che, and EFNet/Open Projects IRC as Che_Fox.
