DNA theme for new FC6 browser splash page

[Máirín Duffy]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v3b-dark-headings.png
Type: image/png
Size: 111451 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-art-list/attachments/20060919/52c5efa4/attachment.png>