10:01 a.m.
It turns out the original pages on the creation of the Fedora logo, once
located at http://capstrat.com/development/fedora/index.php, are gone.
I took some time to grab what I could from archive.org and reconstruct
it here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/History
~m
10:04 a.m.
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 11:01 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
It turns out the original pages on the creation of the Fedora logo,
once
located at http://capstrat.com/development/fedora/index.php, are gone.
I took some time to grab what I could from archive.org and reconstruct
it here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/History
Good work Mo! I remember there being some controversy over the design
when it first came out, but now when I look at it I can't imagine our
using anything else. The thought that went into the logo really helped
us shape the definition of the overall Fedora brand.
Thanks for capturing this vital history lesson.
--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
10:09 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 11:01 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> It turns out the original pages on the creation of the Fedora logo, once
> located at http://capstrat.com/development/fedora/index.php, are gone.
>
> I took some time to grab what I could from archive.org and reconstruct
> it here:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/History
Good work Mo! I remember there being some controversy over the design
when it first came out, but now when I look at it I can't imagine our
using anything else.
Wellllll.... the word mark not using an open font has always bothered me...
:)
Other than that I can agree.
~m
10:25 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Good work Mo! I remember there being some controversy over the design
when it first came out, but now when I look at it I can't imagine our
using anything else. The thought that went into the logo really helped
us shape the definition of the overall Fedora brand.
I was one of the skeptics in its early days but since then changed my
opinion and created a lot of graphics around it.
--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro
9:01 p.m.
You know, I am not too sure about the reasoning to that decision. But
that is something that should be up for discussion, there may or may not
be legal repercussion for the use of a non-open typeface. (and I am no
legal expert, so I am not sure to what those repercussion might be.)
But again, that is something that should be brought up at the
art-list... but I am not sure if there should be a directive to have the
typeface changed, but looking at if there is an issue would be a good
thing. Keep fedora out of trouble.
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 11:09 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Wellllll.... the word mark not using an open font has always bothered
me...
:)
10:45 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Duvelle Jones <duvelle.jones(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You know, I am not too sure about the reasoning to that decision.
But
that is something that should be up for discussion, there may or may not
be legal repercussion for the use of a non-open typeface. (and I am no
legal expert, so I am not sure to what those repercussion might be.)
Red Hat has paid for the use of the font in the logo, and can
distribute copies of the logo royalty-free. The only reason that
someone might need a copy of the font is to modify the logo, and per
the trademark guidelines, that should never occur, therefore there is
no legal ramification to distributing the logo as is.
11:02 p.m.
Thank you, I wasn't clarified of that.
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 23:45 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
Red Hat has paid for the use of the font in the logo, and can
distribute copies of the logo royalty-free. The only reason that
someone might need a copy of the font is to modify the logo, and per
the trademark guidelines, that should never occur, therefore there is
no legal ramification to distributing the logo as is.
1:16 a.m.
Jon Stanley wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Duvelle Jones
<duvelle.jones(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> You know, I am not too sure about the reasoning to that decision. But
> that is something that should be up for discussion, there may or may not
> be legal repercussion for the use of a non-open typeface. (and I am no
> legal expert, so I am not sure to what those repercussion might be.)
Red Hat has paid for the use of the font in the logo, and can
distribute copies of the logo royalty-free. The only reason that
someone might need a copy of the font is to modify the logo, and per
the trademark guidelines, that should never occur, therefore there is
no legal ramification to distributing the logo as is.
And for various titles and additional graphics, we selected a free font,
MgOpen Modata, which is "officially", _the_ complementary font:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines#Complementary_Font
As for logo modification, the initial proposal provided this as a
possibility, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Image:Logo-history-variations.jpg but
that was scraped.
Here is what we got from mixing the wordmark (in Bryant 2 font) and
additional MgOpen Modata glyphs (it is a recent development):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Image:Fedora_secondary_logo_draft_guidelin...
--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro
7:19 a.m.
Duvelle Jones wrote:
You know, I am not too sure about the reasoning to that decision.
But
that is something that should be up for discussion, there may or may not
be legal repercussion for the use of a non-open typeface. (and I am no
legal expert, so I am not sure to what those repercussion might be.)
There isn't. Fonts as a piece of software can have IP attached to them;
letterforms are not copyrightable AFAIK. So I do not believe there is
legal risk here.
~m
8:08 a.m.
Máirín Duffy wrote:
Duvelle Jones wrote:
> You know, I am not too sure about the reasoning to that decision. But
> that is something that should be up for discussion, there may or may not
> be legal repercussion for the use of a non-open typeface. (and I am no
> legal expert, so I am not sure to what those repercussion might be.)
There isn't. Fonts as a piece of software can have IP attached to them;
letterforms are not copyrightable AFAIK. So I do not believe there is
legal risk here.
IANAL, but I saw this source used as a reference when talking about this
issue: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis
--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro
5663
days inactive
5665
days old
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Duvelle Jones -
Jon Stanley -
Máirín Duffy -
Nicu Buculei -
Paul W. Frields