[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: DNA theme for new FC6 browser splash page



Dimitris Glezos wrote:
Máirín, please note a couple of points:

  1. The theme I suggested as "preferred" (v3b) uses the official Fedora logo on
the right side of the header. See the live version at:

   http://dimitris.glezos.com/box/foss/fc6-browser-splash/

Dimitris, I'm attaching the only mockup with a 'v3b' label in its filename that was included in the fc6-browser-splash-shots.tar.gz that you sent to this list. I apologize for the confusion but I did not receive a copy of the version that is at the link quoted above in that tar.gz file. I was assuming you were referring to the attached.

  2. I didn't design the injudicial logo. In fact, I found it as part of Fedora
Core at `/usr/share/gdm/themes/Bluecurve/rh_logo-header.png`. Furthermore, the
whole default theme of FC5 was based on a Fedora logo which is inside a 3D white
outline :) :

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/ThemingOverview

  I think the white outline was beautiful and that it could be defended as an
equal to the original trademarked one in a court very profoundly.

I understand your position, but that is your opinion and we need to consider the opinions of the trademark holders most seriously I think. There is definitely a gap in the logo guidelines that needs to be addressed.

Also, the artwork you cite was created well before the guidelines were created and made public.

  3. In my last mail I agreed that the artwork and the guidelines should be
aligned. We should include a version with white outline in the guidelines
produced by the fedora-artwork team. So, I agree with all the points concerning
the guidelines.

Okay, great. As I mentioned earlier I asked the folks in charge of the guidelines whether or not the outline was acceptable and if the guidelines could be updated to include more variations. I will keep the list posted on what I hear back from them.

I believe we are wasting time with this whole discussion because the
modification is very small and could be included in the guidelines by now.

This is not true as I don't believe anyone on this list has the blessings of Red Hat to change the guidelines (if there is someone here please speak up! :) ). This is why I brought the issue up to the folks who created the guidelines - so we can change them.

Please let's go on and include it because the artwork and the people need it.

Finally, please do bear in mind that these discussions are a real "stop energy"
[1] to volunteers.

Dimitris, I'm not happy about having to bring it up and seeming like the bad guy; as I said before intersections between law and art suck but they are there and I am just trying to make sure we don't set a precedent that will put the logo at risk. That is all. And I really do not think this is a serious example of stop energy as it would be trivial to remove the white outline if you were to use the attached mockup and I would do it myself for you gladly. You asked for feedback and you got it; that's the way it's supposed to work.

Anyway, if it is any consolation, I am also involved with the GNOME logo redesign and that is where some of my fears about the logo variation have come from as I learned a lot about logo trademarking from that experience.

I also think this discussion was well worth it as a serious flaw in the guidelines was exposed and we are hopefully on track to address it and improve the guidelines.

Thanks,
~m

PNG image


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]