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: > > 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. Any news here? Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio