Yo all, I've just read your messages. My thoughts:
- GNOME are slow, even slower than us :P. Technically we shouldn't have any problem about the logo, even the replies were friendly and nice. I don't even know how often they have meetings to discuss licensing matters like ours. - As Tim says, we implicitly have their blessing. We already had it when we were misusing the GNOME foot; there's no reason to have any issue now that we've virtually removed any possible infringement of their branding. - In all fairness, when we were infringing stuff they took like 8 months to reply; I suspect that they will take much longer now that all is alright. *IMHO, the new logo should be publicly announced*, it's already in the wiki, plymouth, syslinux, ubiquity, etc. Best regards, Alfredo On 31 August 2015 at 09:29, Patrik Bubák <[email protected]> wrote: > About that (WOGUE), when they posted the update on the logo it got the > attention of the audience of course and among them I'm pretty sure quite a > few Gnome guys, so I think they are aware of what's going on and if they > would have something to add I'm sure they would reach out to us. > > On Mon, 2015-08-31 at 17:21 +1000, Tim wrote: > > > On 31/08/15 16:21, Patrik Bubák wrote:> I understand and agree, but as we > thought about it, the new logo eliminates all confusion, so we don't know > what is it for them to "approve".> Maybe only if they weren't OK with us > using the word "GNOME" in our name at all, only that would change everything, > but that would give us> also very little time to change the entire concept > again, because creating a logo is not an easy process as many of our > community members like> to think. It involves extensive research and > evaluation before we may proceed with the conversion of gathered ideas onto > canvas and digital> and then presenting it to you and Tim and then go public. > I guess the problem really is that the lists where trademark stuff gets > discussed are private. However we have always done the right thing, (the > use of the roundel was more just a misunderstanding) and pretty sure the > GNOME board realises that. Right from day1 we had discussion with both > camps, over the name Ubuntu GNOME, so that is pretty safe unless they decided > to re-neg the approval. They would have already come after us if > they were unhappy with distro name or domain name etc. They certainly went > after wogue (when it was worldofgnome.org or something).>> At our pace, this > could take months, which would mean that we would have to use their logo > longer, which they would not be happy with. > > > -- > Sent using Evolution <https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evolution/> from Ubuntu > <http://ubuntu.com/desktop> > > Nothing ruins creativity like too many voices weighing in. We call it the *Ice > Cream Principle*. Tell 10 people to go get ice cream with one condition: > they all have to agree on one flavour. That flavour is going to be > chocolate or vanilla every time. Groups of people don't agree on what's > cool or interesting, they agree on what's easy to agree on. > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntugnome-artwork > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntugnome-artwork > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntugnome-artwork Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntugnome-artwork More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
