On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a specific logo was prepared. In this case, the permission has been requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the ArtWork page.
BTW, that is the logo only;
There are two aspects here:
1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without the wordmark?
2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to make it explicit what can and cannot be done.
For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there may be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand-alone in various situations. For this I am seeking expert advice.
As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of just the logo, point 5 here:
https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses
But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork page.
What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and ii) fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.
Best regards,
- Karsten
People,
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a specific logo was prepared. In this case, the permission has been requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the ArtWork page.
BTW, that is the logo only;
There are two aspects here:
- Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without
the wordmark?
- If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to
make it explicit what can and cannot be done.
For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there may be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand- alone in various situations. For this I am seeking expert advice.
As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of just the logo, point 5 here:
https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses
But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork page.
What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and ii) fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.
Any news here?
Best Regards,
Hi all,
There is now a draft permission letter working it's way through the CentOS Board. It is intended to cover permission for just the GNOME Project's use with GNOME Boxes.
I am still pursuing resolving this within the guidelines, that will take more time.
Best regards,
- Karsten
On 10/16/2018 07:10 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
People,
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a specific logo was prepared. In this case, the permission has been requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the ArtWork page.
BTW, that is the logo only;
There are two aspects here:
- Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without
the wordmark?
- If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to
make it explicit what can and cannot be done.
For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there may be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand- alone in various situations. For this I am seeking expert advice.
As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of just the logo, point 5 here:
https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses
But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork page.
What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and ii) fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.
Any news here?
Best Regards,
Karsten,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:06 PM Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
There is now a draft permission letter working it's way through the CentOS Board. It is intended to cover permission for just the GNOME Project's use with GNOME Boxes.
This is *really* good news!
I am still pursuing resolving this within the guidelines, that will take more time.
What does it mean, exactly? Does it mean that a logo, as the one done for docker, will be prepared for Boxes usage meanwhile or that we'll have to solve the guidelines issues as the first thing?
Thanks a lot for helping us here!
Best regards,
- Karsten
On 10/16/2018 07:10 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
People,
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a specific logo was prepared. In this case, the permission has been requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the ArtWork page.
BTW, that is the logo only;
There are two aspects here:
- Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without
the wordmark?
- If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to
make it explicit what can and cannot be done.
For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there may be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand- alone in various situations. For this I am seeking expert advice.
As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of just the logo, point 5 here:
https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses
But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork page.
What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and ii) fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.
Any news here?
Best Regards,
-- Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig
Best Regards,
On 10/31/2018 02:53 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
What does it mean, exactly?
Does it mean that a logo, as the one done for docker, will be prepared for Boxes usage meanwhile or that we'll have to solve the guidelines issues as the first thing?
It means two things:
1. I want to make sure that GNOME has clear permission to use the graphic logo without the wordmark.
Who will prepare the logo? I do not know, we could use a volunteer.
When are you OK to use it? As soon as the Board finishes and issues a letter, which is now in the draft stage.
2. I want to clarify any ambiguity/confusion with the trademark guidelines and the artwork/logo guidelines.
If there is anything needing changes, hopefully that will make it so that no further special permission is needed for similar uses.
While I do think the permission is already granted by the trademark guidelines, there may be some ambiguity because there is no corresponding logo without the wordmark and usage guidelines on the wiki ArtWork page.
Best regards,
- Karsten
-
Fabiano Fidêncio -
Fabiano Fidêncio -
Karsten Wade