On 7 October 2011 14:05, C. Boemann <c...@boemann.dk> wrote: > On Friday 07 October 2011 12:40:11 Markus Slopianka wrote: >> Which license is that logo under? Is it standard Oxygen Icons licensing >> (=LGPL to allow embedding it into GPL apps), is it CC-BY-SA, or anything >> else (LGPL+CC dual licensing for example)? >> >> On Donnerstag 06 Oktober 2011 18:38:23 Thorsten Zachmann wrote: >> > Hello all, >> > >> > here is the logo Eugene has worked on for us. He took our comments and >> > new we can see the result here. That is the time for final comments and >> > praise. I hope all are satisfied with the result. >> > >> > Thorsten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> calligra-devel mailing list >> calligra-devel@kde.org >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel > For now assume it's Eugenes sole property. We would probably choose a quite > restrictive licence like firefox. I know this might be a problem with > debian[1] > but i don't think it can be any other way if we want to protect our brand.
Well, it's not that obvious which source of inconsistency is more ugly: the one coming from identity forks by projects like Debian (in good will); or the one coming from amateurish attitude to our identity. From discussions like this it's clear we all value the identity and only want it to be better formulated over time. IMHO the former is worse because if this case we cannot improve situation anymore once it happened (unless we re-license). In the latter case we can try 'friendly guideline enforcement' :) -- regards / pozdrawiam, Jaroslaw Staniek http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek Kexi & Calligra (kexi-project.org, identi.ca/kexi, calligra-suite.org) KDE Software Development Platform on MS Windows (windows.kde.org) _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
