Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > >> That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the >> drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that >> interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that >> identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all >> names. A logo is not a name. > > How is Τεχ, a name, any different from the swirl? > > Both serve the same purpose, to uniquely identify; both do so in the > same manner. What is the difference between a name and a logo? m-w.com > gives a name as "a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive > designation of a person or thing."
That's precisely the difference. A logo is not a "word or phrase". I didn't really want to use a dictionary to support my point, but since you provided the definition... :) > Is the only real difference if you can find the identifier in the > Unicode table? If so, that'd make --- IMO --- a very silly distinction. > Especially since I can find ⌚, ⌛, ☝, ♕, etc. there. Or even 怂, which > looks like it'd make a neat logo. No, that's not the distinction. Those characters are not "a word or phrase", they are symbols. (With the exception of the last, which according to gucharmap is some sort of ideograph.) There are symbols in Unicode that are not in words or phrases, and I think there are still words and phrases that use symbols not in Unicode. Regardless, in the face of an apparent ambiguity (though I would not consider it one), you seem to be advocating that we permit more restrictions, while I'm advocating that we permit less restrictions. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
