On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote: > From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the > difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the > link (7.3. For special sub-projects)? Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a specific logo was prepared. In this case, the permission has been requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the ArtWork page. > BTW, that is the logo only; There are two aspects here: 1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without the wordmark? 2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to make it explicit what can and cannot be done. For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there may be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand-alone in various situations. For this I am seeking expert advice. As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of just the logo, point 5 here: https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork page. What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and ii) fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark guidelines and the logo usage guidelines. Best regards, - Karsten -- Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
