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 o
> "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
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 w
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 t
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 reca
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 woul
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
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 byte
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
> 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 p
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 ar
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
> > anot
-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 rememb
-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 offic
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
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, 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 phras
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
