Bill Nottingham (notting@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > Máirín Duffy (duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos > > > present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's > > > mail), I don't know that this counts as modification. > > > > It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the > > guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A > > specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage > > guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM. > > There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've > > gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but > > it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the > > TM-less logo in this instance. > > 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. ... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions of any logos. Bill -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
