On 25-Jan-99, 19:06 (CST), Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with James Treacy's observation that we will probably need two > logos: one logo with a liberal license that people can just freely, and > another, more restricted logo for things like official CD's and so. > To phrase this in another way: we will have a logo that everyone can > slap onto their webpage, t-shirts, posters, etc., and a logo that can be > used for `official' products, like CD's made using our own iso-images.
Sorry, I think this is a bad idea: 1. We have to agree on *two* logos :-). 2. Far more importantly, it fractures the identity of the logo, which is one of the major points of *having* a logo. 3. It's creates a first-class and second-class logo. Quite honestly, I think the logo for a organization built on and around free software ought to be free. Get a great logo, license it quite liberally, and stand back. If a few losers misuse it, what's the big deal? It's enough that the official CD images can be labeled "Debian Official CD's", they don't need a separate logo. Other than that, I like your ideas of how to progress. Except that I like the chicken: it's simple, slightly elegant, and a great logo. And come on, who could really confuse it with a chicken? Steve
