Discussion January 2001

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

42 participants
50 discussions

Fw: Logo considerations
by Alex Hudson 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

> A logo needs colour IMO, and choosing a colour is almost as vital as > choosing a logo because it will be part of the FSFE's "corporate > design". So ... what colour should be associated with the FSFE? My > personal preference is a soft green, but would do others think? Just a quickie - please don't underestimate the importance of a monochrome (preferably black/white) interpretation of the logo. Think of practicalities - printing, etc. If a logo *needs* colour to work, that can make traditional media (i.e., printing) extremely expensive. A good logo *must* work in monochrome - otherwise, it will be extremely difficult to work with at shows, exhibitions, etc. That's NOT to say that there shouldn't be colour renditions - obviously, a flashier, coloured logo is suitable for web pages, for example, because there is no increased cost associated. But there are a multitude of situations in which a logo is required, and it should be as flexible and reusable as possible. Also, where corporate colours are concerned, and also the logo, please remember accessibility - if a logo is going to be more than monochromatic in some instances (and there _should_ be a defined corporate colour set), please make sure it is of high contrast, etc. Not everyone is able to make out all colours. A little thought should be given to those with less capable eyesight, in terms of detail and colour. A logo doesn't need to be complex and flashily coloured for it to work well. An example in the UK would be the BBC (http://www.beeb.com/) - an easily recognisable logo, but extremely simple and monochromatic. I'm not saying the FSFE should be similarly simple, but there is a lot to be said for plain colour, primary colours, simplicity of layout and accessibility of design. Cheers, Alex.

1 0

Logo considerations
by Georg C. F. Greve 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Hi Everyone! Okay, a few more things about the logo issue. First of all the stars _are_ being associated with the EU as they are using them as "their" symbol. So I agree with the people thinking that it would be a bad idea to use it. But even if we chose to ignore that and wanted to use the stars, we might even get in trouble with them as it is possible the EU would not want us to use them and forbid us to do so. That would do serious "logo image damage." I have taken another route, too, and asked my mother for advice as she is a professional artist and "having an eye for things" is her job. So I wasn't beyond making good use of that for our purposes. :-) Her comments were: - The more abstract logo itself is pretty good, especially as the frontal view "involves" the viewer. Only the eyes should definitely be left away. - There should definitely be a background as it looks to "flat" otherwise and she the European map more than anything else she could think of. Personally I agree with her assessment (I have come to trust it over the years) and I do believe that the logo with the map in the background will work just fine - scaling it down to 100x98 or something like that is just fine. So could you please do a big high quality version of the GNU & Europa motive without eyes with the map in the background, Anja? I'd love to see that... we can play around with the colors then, too... Regards, Georg -- Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org> Free Software Foundation Europe (http://www.fsfeurope.org) GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org) Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)

5 5

re: logo considerations
by David 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

> Thinking about small sizes I figure that something with an unusual > shape, e.g. a silhouette, might even be better. The Linux penguin > both has an unusual shape and a strong set of colours (black / > white / yellow). I have been thinking about silhouettes of a gnu > and a rider last week. There are a few more logo samples at my > page: > > http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~anja/gnu/ Being silhouettes, there's an inevitable problem with foreground/background ambiguity, namely that the flowing hair behind the back looks more like caricatured armpit hair. Which may be no less European, granted. A gnu being the surest way to quick irrelevance notwithstanding (mountain goats are far hardier), the second Europa Riding line art is my favourite. Use without map on web, with faint green map on hard copy. There, sorted. David

1 0

Crazy gnus
by Olivier Berger 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

Just a small piece of humour from April, as a way to wish tou a happy new year : http://www.april.org/index.html.en Best wishes for this new (free) year, -- Olivier BERGER - Secrétaire de l'association APRIL APRIL (http://www.april.org) - Vive python (http://www.python.org) Pétition contre les brevets logiciels : http://petition.eurolinux.org

1 0

Re: to get in touch
by Christopher R.Gabriel 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

Carlos> Hi Simo and everyone. I've been following the list Carlos> although I've had no chance to participate. My name is Carlos> Carlos Betancourt and I live in Brussels. I'll go to Carlos> Amsterdam with my car, so if anyone wants to go with me, Carlos> don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be managing the Linux Carlos> Greenhouse booth, so come around and say hello ;-) See you Carlos> there... I'll be there managing the FSF/GNOME booth, please stops by and say hello :) Cheers, Christopher

1 0

Re: to get in touch
by Carlos Betancourt 11 Jan '01

11 Jan '01

Hi Simo and everyone. I've been following the list although I've had no chance to participate. My name is Carlos Betancourt and I live in Brussels. I'll go to Amsterdam with my car, so if anyone wants to go with me, don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be managing the Linux Greenhouse booth, so come around and say hello ;-) See you there... Carlos > >From: Simo Sorce <simo.sorce(a)tiscalinet.it> >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:24:26 +0100 >To: discussion(a)fsfeurope.org >Subject: to get in touch > >anyone to be at LinuxExpo in Amsterdam in January (23-24?) >

1 0

Statuatory for Austrian Subsection (in German)
by Georg Jakob 10 Jan '01

10 Jan '01

Hi, I just wanted to remind the german-speaking subscribers to this list that Matthias Kabel, me and some more guys from Austria are planning to create some kind of national austrian fsf-europe subsection. The legal construct of an association (=Verein) seemed the best to us (AFAIK this is the way a lot of Non-Profit Organizations, including Greenpeace, work). Matthias has put a draft for a statuatory on the web which can be found at http://www.salzburg.luga.or.at/fsf-statuten.tex Such a statutuatory is required by austrian Law and our draft is structured in the way it should be. But the impüortant thing is that we should discuss the content, e.g. how could we formulated what the intention af the association will be in a better way. This does not necessarily mean the legal way of formulating it, but rather the ideologic component - what has to be in it, what should be changed/avoided. This has been posted some time ago here, but it seems that we've been carried away a bit by the Logo-Issue (wich is also important, but we shouldn't forget about the rest). It would be great if some of you would be willing to take the time and have a critic look at it ... Thanks a lot, --Georg

5 8

GPL
by Imran Ghory 10 Jan '01

10 Jan '01

Not specifically a FSF/Europe thing but some vaguley related question about how GPL actually works. 1) Does the GPL apply to the GPL, that is can you create a licence which is based upon GPL without violating the GPL ? 2) Can you licence some software under two licences for instance, could you write a program and offer it under both GPL and say the BSD licence ? 3) If a program is under GPL does that bar it from including non- GPL code ? 4) If you had for instance some graphics which you wanted to include with a software package which was under GPL, but didn't want to release the graphics under GPL is there anyway you could do it ? In particular I was considering the following paragraph from the GPL, "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Could this be used to include non-GPLed graphics in a GPLed program ? Imran

2 1

answers
by Brian Youmans 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

Janet Casey forwarded me Imran's message; since it was sent to the list, I thought I should send my reply to the list so that other people don't waste their energy saying the same things. If this is off topic for the GNU Europe list (which I'm not on), I hope people will cut the list out of any responses they have. On to the questions... >1) Does the GPL apply to the GPL, that is can you create a >licence which is based upon GPL without violating the GPL ? The GPL is not covered by the GPL. The copying permission on the GPL allows you to copy it, but prohibits changes. The FSF does not particularly want people making licenses that look like the GPL but have small differences. We particularly don't want someone else to make changes in the GPL and fail to make that clear! We also discourage people from making changes because we would rather have someone use an existing license rather than producing a new one. There are too many free software licenses, it is difficult to keep track of them all. However, if you REALLY want to base a new license on the GPL, and you tell us why that is necessary, the FSF will probably give permission to use the GPL as a starting point, as long as it is made ABSOLUTELY clear that this is a different license from the GPL. >2) Can you licence some software under two licences for instance, >could you write a program and offer it under both GPL and say the >BSD licence ? This is a vague question. Some programs offer a choice of which license you want to use for distribution - Perl is a good example. In general, the copyright holder can offer the program any way they want. They just have to make sure that whatever combination of licenses they make is not incompatible. >3) If a program is under GPL does that bar it from including non- >GPL code ? No. The non-GPLed code must be under a compatible license. The easiest example is of course public domain code - if there is no copyright on the code, or copyright has been disclaimed, the code can be included in _any_ program, no matter what the license is. See www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html for info on what licenses are compatible. >4) If you had for instance some graphics which you wanted to >include with a software package which was under GPL, but didn't >want to release the graphics under GPL is there anyway you could >do it ? Assuming that the graphics were an integral part of the program, the only way you could include them in a GPLed program would be to add a special exception to the licensing saying something like, "As a special exception, PROGRAM can be distributed in executable form linked with the graphics file 'PROPRIETARY.GIF'." The "mere aggregation" clause might apply, but only if it was truly only "mere aggregation" - for instance, if the GPLEd program was one used for sorting image files, it would probably be OK to include it on a CD full of proprietary image files. The program wouldn't care what the images were, they would just be data to be sorted. On the other hand, if the images were being used by the program itself in some way, that would NOT be 'mere aggregation'. Brian Youmans FSF Office Staff Free Software Foundation | A 501 (c) 3 not-for-profit 59 Temple Place, Suite 330 | corporation; contributions Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA | are tax-deductible in the | USA. voice: +1-617-542-5942 | fax: +1-617-542-2652 | Support Project GNU... web: http://www.gnu.org | GNU's Not Unix!

1 0

correction
by Georg Jakob 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

Statuatory, of course ...

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion January 2001