incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Moving ahead with the AOO logo and rebranding
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:14:53 GMT
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Rob;
>
> JIC someone with a lot of spare time gives a try
> on this logo thing ... I have some questions.
>
> What would be the implications (if any) of using
> a legally licensed commercial font?
>

Our ability to use such a logo would depend on the specific terms of
the font license.

But in general, a commercial font license might lead to restrictions
on how we redistribute images using the font.  For example, we might
only be able to redistribute rasterized bitmaps of a logo, but not a
scalable vector image that included a font glyph definition as well.
A commercial font might also restrict who in the project is able to
modify the logo or create derivative logos for the benefit of the
project.

I'm not sure any of these are killer objections to the use of a
commercial font.  But I think we'd want a strong design reason for not
using a font with few or no restrictions.

> Ariel pointed to some nice splash screens done
> previously in the Wiki, can those be (re)used
> as a starting point?
>

I have no objections.  But I think right now we're talking about the
general theme of the Drew's logo proposal, i.e., the distinctive
design elements of:

- text
- color
- type face
- spacing
- background
- embellishment.
- and so on

If there is consensus on that, then there will be follow up design
work to incorporate that logo into a variety of locations, including a
splash screen.  But I think there is a hesitation to invest in that
additional work until we're sure the basic design is OK.

-Rob

> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- Mar 3/1/12, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> ha scritto:
> ...
>> 2012/1/3 Pavel Janík <Pavel@janik.cz>:
>> >> we would use (TM).  At some point, say after we
>> actually have a
>> >> release, then we could ask Apache to pursue
>> registration for "Apache
>> >> OpenOffice"
>> >
>> > Why would we do so if we know that Sun/Oracle could
>> not get it registered (and thus have chosen OpenOffice.org
>> instead)?
>>
>> We're talking about the full mark, "Apache
>> OpenOffice".  I have no
>> reason to think this could not be registered.
>>
>> In any case, we already discussed this, voted, and the
>> choice was
>> "Apache OpenOffice".  We're now talking about the
>> graphical ogo that
>> will reflect that name.
>>
>> > --
>> > Pavel Janík
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message