On 04/04/2013 10:29 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be used, the > logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would > be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without > any modification. The logo in the package with the TM was put there for a specific, approved purpose. Just because a graphic is in the fedora-logos package doesn't mean it's a free-for-all to use however you want. For example, we have an approved version of the logo that is in greyscale, and there may be limited instances in which you would want to use a greyscale Fedora logo in Fedora - that doesn't mean that in writing or modifying an application in Fedora that you can just snag that greyscale logo and not be in any violation of the logo usage guidelines or the intended usage of the logo. The vast majority of usages of the Fedora logo (which I admit are dwindling down to 1 or 2 at this point) should be in full-color, and the usage of the approved greyscale version is meant to be really limited. The context in which the logo is displayed, outside of whether or not it has a TM, is also important, and really should be discussed before it is changed. I believe all of these changes to the logo's display taking place without any discussion is a big reason why the changes have blown up into these long and upsetting threads. ~m _______________________________________________ design-team mailing list design-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/design-team
