On 8/4/16 7:10 AM, "Andrew Bernard" <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There seems to be an assumption here that the logo _is_ the waterlily >graphic on the webpage, and that it is just a matter of coding it up. I >am not sure that this is the formal lilypond logo, is it? Has that been >decided or discussed? In any case, does it convey the brand clearly and >recognisably? What is a logo for? Does lilypond actually need visual >branding? Are we trying to increase market share with a logo? It's pretty clear to me that the waterlily graphic is *not* a logo; it's a web graphic. I like it on the website. But it doesn't have the right characteristics for a logo. >Colour is no good - pretty much everybody prints music in B&W, and >musicians copy it on photocopiers in B&W. So if a logo is to be made, it >would have to be B&W almost of necessity. Yes, and not gray scale either. Just black and white. > >Since lilypond is GNU lilypond, does the GNU logo have to be >incorporated? I think there are many questions. The GNU logo does not have to be incorporated. See, for example the GIMP logo. http://www.gimp.org/ I agree that if we want to have a logo available on the colophon, we should create a real logo. And this will require some work and discussion. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
