On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Douglas L Stewart wrote: > > Why does your page still have this comment: > > > > "(There once was an official logo with a baby gnu on it (see above), but > > it has been dropped with the separation of Debian and the FSF.)" > > > > We kissed and made up long ago. Below I've quoted this page: > > > > http://www.debian.org/cooperation.html > > > > Even if our relationship is such that it isn't appropriate to use a "baby > > gnu", the statement is misleading. > > I don't see anything misleading about it. There doesn't require an > animosity for a logo to change. For instance, I work in a division of a > company that will at some point probably go public and thus become its own > company. At that time we'll have to change our logo and name.
In the current stat of "cooperation", it seems that the reason for _not_ using the baby gnu logo has nothing to due with the "separation". As Bruce (sort of) said, the reason could be stated as: "we wanted our own logo" "no need to use theirs because we're a stand-alone entity" etc. This fits your example. The statement as it is screams "un-cooperation" to me. This is a simple issue. Let's not get carried away like the editor thread! ...RickM...
