Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le lundi 18 novembre 2013, à 08:51 +0000, Ekaterina Gerasimova a écrit :
> On 18 November 2013 01:02, Emily Gonyer <emilyyrose gmail com> wrote:
> > So, what would Ubuntu GNOME need to do to differentiate their logo
> > from the 'normal' GNOME logo?
>
> Anything which would make the logo look like a different logo. You can
> find an interesting article about this at
> http://lwn.net/Articles/491639/ (there is a section specifically about
> GNOME towards the bottom)

Can you clarify whether the issue is that this is using the GNOME foot
or that it is the GNOME foot in white with a blue background?

(not sure I'm looking at the right logo, but I only see the one from
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGNOME/OneStopPage)

> > Can they not use the GNOME foot at all?
>
> Yes, under nominative use when referring to GNOME itself. The logo and
> trademark guidelines are available at
> http://www.gnome.org/logo-and-trademarks/

So I guess I didn't notice the time where we started to enforce this. I
do have issues with the guidelines, as I believe they're not working
well for a community driven project (and product!). I mean:

 - "Always ensure that the logo is black or white, depending on the
    background color (other colors are not permitted)"
    => we fail at this, as we produced relatively recently stickers with
       a yellow foot, and I'm pretty sure there are still many cases
       where this is ignored

 - "Always ensure that the logo is not embedded within other images or
    graphics."
    => we fail at this with the GNOME.Asia logo

 - the page seems to imply that we must always have the full logo (ie,
   not just the foot, but also the word GNOME). Clearly, this is not
   respected by way too many people, including ourselves.

 - we keep insisting about using the TM (which, btw, we don't use in the
   control center in the system details panel) -- that is a big pain and
   makes things ugly. My recollection of various debates about this from
   when I was on the board is that it's not even required, but just
   recommended.

I for one am not happy with this situation. I remember that, years ago,
Luis wanted to find an alternative way which wouldn't imply these strict
guidelines. But to be honest, if there's no other way, then I think I'd
like to question the need to trademark the logo.

Cheers,

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.