Arch Linux logo concept

freigeist · 2007-10-22 08:16:39

foxbunny wrote:

Updated with a promo poster (100x70cm):
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 41#p291441

woooohooooo...great! I drop my pathetic attempts...love your concept!

Sigi · 2007-10-22 09:43:51

foxbunny wrote:

Updated with a promo poster (100x70cm):
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 41#p291441

Awesome concept! I'll try to provide you with a 3D-rendering soon if I find the time (only for the wallpaper and poster, the logo looks great as it is right now).

foxbunny · 2007-10-22 09:54:17

Sigi, if you are doing the 3D renders, could you please create an anim where the sphere in the center rotates? I think that would make an excellent promo video. (Or maybe wait until the logo is accepted officialy... if it is accepted at all, that is...)

SVGs are available here:

http://foxbunny.team88.org/arch

There is the arch_global.zip which contains all the SVGs, as well as individual SVGs scattered around the directory. You will need the London Between fonts because the text is NOT converted into curves. And you will need Inkscape, of course.

http://www.dafont.com/london-between.font

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-22 10:15:42)

foxbunny · 2007-10-22 12:49:04

Okay, so I had a quick look at the Competition announcement draft. I think the part about Arch Linux owning the logo, it can't be done without making an Arch Linux foundation or sumsuch legal entity.

OTOH, we can properly license the logo to all developers, or at least one of them who will be in charge of the logo (Phracture). It will not be free art as in freedom, but it will still be licensed to the dev for him to do whatever he pleases with it. IOW, no public license, so that no one can use the artwork but the dev. Just a proper private exclusive license targeted at a specific individual. The license should include the exclusive right to relicense the artwork to any 3rd party under conditions similar to the original license, or maybe a more open license.

During the voting period, there could be a limited license with a definite deadline. License is, AFAIK, a simple contract between the author and the licensee so I don't think there should be any legal trouble as long as the licensee is an individual (or a group of individuals).

As for completely giving up possession of the artwork by the original author, I don't think that is necessary.

EDIT: Maybe devs could come up with such a license that we are obliged to agree on before we can submit the artwork?

Like "By submitting the artwork, you agree to the following terms... yada yada"

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-22 12:51:07)

zenlord · 2007-10-22 17:12:40

I think a Creative Commons-licence is the one that will suit the needs of both Arch Linux and the authors of their respective logos.

http://creativecommons.org/about/

It's a licence inbetween the public domain and the strictly copyrighted material, with several levels of protection. Also, the people behind those licences are working internationally to get these licences recognised. Not that it matters that much, but it will make people trust the licences more.

I propose the Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa)

Zl.

thayer · 2007-10-22 17:49:55

The problem with using CC as a license for the logo itself is that it does not prevent someone from taking the logo and using it for a different product/service/project that is completely unrelated to Arch Linux. Even the Noncommercial disclosure faces a grey area, because "commercial" could mean many different things and there's no clear definition provided by the CC legalese. What if a non-profit organization "borrowed it" for their own logo... is that commercial? Will the claim hold up in court/mediation?

A (Common Law) trademark would allow us to distribute the logo under the restriction that it be used only for Arch Linux related material. Then subsequent artwork that uses the logo (e.g. wallpapers) could be licensed as CC with the additional restrictions of the trademark usage.

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-22 17:51:27)

foxbunny · 2007-10-22 17:53:45

I agree with Thayer that CC is not an ideal license. First of all, CC is non-exclusive, which would mean anyone could use the artwork under the terms defined by CC. Whatever license we come up with, it has to be express and exclusive. We cannot, IMHO, rely on implied rights and non-exclusive licenses.

Share-alike is right out since CC is not compatible with GPL, and if Arch is to be released under GPL the logos can't be used.

I think it would also be possible to ask for help some of the organization that offer legal advice to free software developers.

As for later trademark registration:

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_ … demark.htm

Both trademarks and service marks can be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office - and states can regulate trademarks and service marks used within the particular state.
A mark is not eligible to be registered if it is:
(a) immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter,
(b) flag of coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any state, municipality, or foreign nation,
(c) a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except with that individual's written consent, or the name, signature or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of the President's spouse, except with the spouse's written consent,
(d) a mark that resembles one already registered that is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception,
(e) a mark that is merely descriptive, or a deceptive mis-description, of goods, or primarily a geographical description or deceptive geographical mis-description of goods, or a surname - unless the mark has become distinctive of the applicant's goods in commerce.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm

The purpose of licensing is twofold:

In one case, we license the artwork for exclusive use by developers in order to get the logos to dev-public so they can be voted upon. That use will be limited to dev-public and until the voting is finished, which is a definite time frame.

In second case, we license the artwork for exclusive use by developers, so they can, with or without modifications, freely copy, and redistribute the artwork along with Arch Linux, and Arch-Linux-related products (Arch Linux goods, like mugs and etc, CDs, books, whatnot). Also, the devs should be able to give out copies to 3rd parties who will design or create branded goods.

Basically, I think this is a bit more complicated than what CC covers.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-22 18:18:03)

zenlord · 2007-10-22 18:25:26

thayer.w wrote:

Even the Noncommercial disclosure faces a grey area, because "commercial" could mean many different things and there's no clear definition provided by the CC legalese.

Section 4c of the proposed licence stipulates clearly:
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works."

I think this is a pretty good definition, because it is very broad: 'any monetary compensation'

What if a non-profit organization "borrowed it" for their own logo... is that commercial? Will the claim hold up in court/mediation?

This is something completely different. Any organisation could use the logo, granted it places a URI to the CC-website reserved for the person who owns the licence on this work. If that organisation fails to do this in any way, they lose the right to use the logo. And come on, what self-respecting company would use a logo with a URI underneath it anytime they display it publicly in any way?

The way I see it, the licence fits the open mindedness of the linuxcommunity, and still preserves the rights. The author gives the winning logo to Archlinux, but is still concidered to be the author (moral rights in Belgian law), and Archlinux deposits the logo to Creative Commons, so that only Archlinux kan use this logo ('financial' rights are donated to Archlinux).

But the deposit also gives the author an advantage, because now the whole world is able to see that the logo was deposited on a certain date and thus anyone using the logo after that date, violates not only the licence owned by Archlinux, but also the moral rights of the author.

If you want a worldwide trademark, then you can start collecting donations and hiring a lawfirm to do it for you. I am a lawyer, but patents and trademarks is not my domain of expertise, and of course I practice law in Belgium, and my knowledge of foreign law is limited...

Zl.

zenlord · 2007-10-22 18:40:02

foxbunny wrote:

Basically, I think this is a bit more complicated than what CC covers.

Hehe - now this is a little presumptuous, don't you think? CC is gaining attention and recognition worldwide, and the exclusive licence you describe in two sentences is more complicated than that?

Of course, the author could also reserve all rights and agree by entering the competition that the official developers of Archlinux are granted the exclusive right to use and redistribute, commercially or not, all the submitted logo's.

This might be the simplest of licences, but than noone that writes a review of Archlinux can put the logo on their website, nor can an Archlinux-user express this by using the logo on a website or t-shirt.

What I'm saying is: don't try to reinvent the wheel here and stick to what you do. Legal mumbojumbo is in cases as this very complicated and every word should be thought about carefully. Why not stick to what is so known around the whole world?

And if you think you can stop everybody of using a logo or part of it with a licence of any kind, than you should wake up and smell the coffee. Thousands of works are plagiarised (sp?) every day without the knowledge of the author...

And finally: I don't think this discussion should be held here, nor by 'us'. It's the devs who will decide this, and I think they have faced questions like this before. You guys should stick with what you have done so good lately: creating logo's. Some of the stuff I have seen here is VERY nice! If only it would be released under an open licence, than I could use it as my own (j/k)

Zl.

thayer · 2007-10-22 18:49:21

zenlord wrote:

....I don't think this discussion should be held here, nor by 'us'. It's the devs who will decide this, and I think they have faced questions like this before.
Zl.

100% agreed, zen.

I would only like to mention that registering a trademark is optional. You can trademark anything under Common Law by simply using the "TM" symbol where ever it is published. It may not hold the same weight, but it's free, requires no additional resources and it signifies that it is in fact your mark.

foxbunny · 2007-10-22 20:08:35

zenlord wrote:

This might be the simplest of licences, but than noone that writes a review of Archlinux can put the logo on their website, nor can an Archlinux-user express this by using the logo on a website or t-shirt.

First of all, I think that journalists are free to use the logos in their publications under fair use clause, or whatever it is called. Same goes for wikipedia, where you can find lots and lots of copyrighted AND registered trademarks. As for Arch Linux users using the logo on t-shirts, I don't think Arch Linux devs would actually go as far as suing them. However, I think it is okay for them to reserve the right to sue people in case of blatant misuse.

zenlord wrote:

What I'm saying is: don't try to reinvent the wheel here and stick to what you do. Legal mumbojumbo is in cases as this very complicated and every word should be thought about carefully. Why not stick to what is so known around the whole world?

So, let's say you publish your logo under CC No-commercial Attribution Share-Alike. That means following (roughly): You can use the logo for non-commercial purposes, provided that you mention the name of the original author, and let others have your work under the same license. Even if we neglect the GPL compatibility issue which has often been discussed on various tech news sites, you still have a problem. This license is NOT exclusive to Arch Linux devs and users. This would mean that anyone, even a non-Arch user could stick the logo on their particular distro, morotbike, gloves, notepad, whatever. Also, Arch devs could not use it on mugs and such, as that would be commercial use. And frankly, I think it is only fair that Arch devs take advantage of Arch users getting those mugs.

zenlord wrote:

And if you think you can stop everybody of using a logo or part of it with a licence of any kind, than you should wake up and smell the coffee. Thousands of works are plagiarised (sp?) every day without the knowledge of the author...

That's a different issue.

zenlord wrote:

And finally: I don't think this discussion should be held here, nor by 'us'. It's the devs who will decide this, and I think they have faced questions like this before. You guys should stick with what you have done so good lately: creating logo's. Some of the stuff I have seen here is VERY nice! If only it would be released under an open licence, than I could use it as my own (j/k)

Okay, okay, just had to ad a quick few paragraphs. Could the mods please split this part of the topic?

peets · 2007-10-22 20:25:33

What's the licensing on the current logo? It doens't seem to me like there's been any trouble with it, and I don't see why we'd need to change it.

Arch may be getting bigger, but that doesn't mean Arch has to imitate what bigger distros or organisations usually do. I don't really see the need for protecting the logo. I can't think of anything that can go wrong and cannot be fixed easily if we keep the logo with the current licence (or a free licence).

foxbunny · 2007-10-22 22:07:54

Well, I guess devs simply want to go super-serious with the whole redesign thing. Which is okay, IMHO.

Pick a good design, properly register it, maybe even create a logo use guideline?

thayer · 2007-10-22 22:47:57

In anticipation of the contest announcement, here's a handful of wallpapers sporting my concept. Credit for the original wallpapers goes to Adan "Venom339" Vivar. Check out his deviantArt gallery for non-Arch versions of these and other wallpapers.

These are all 1680x1050 png files rolled into a 20MB tarball

http://www.cinderwick.ca/files/archer/a … 339.tar.gz

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-23 18:34:35)

herman82 · 2007-10-22 23:17:24

thayer.w wrote:

In anticipation of the contest announcement, here's a handful of wallpapers sporting my concept. Credit for the original wallpapers goes to Adan "Venom339" Vivar. Check out his deviantArt gallery for non-Arch versions of these and other wallpapers.

I really like your stuff - if you post SVG sources I can try and make gdm themes using the gdm theme you posted before

Last edited by herman82 (2007-10-22 23:19:59)

TheBodziO · 2007-10-23 00:57:00

Grenshad wrote:

... \o/ Fame and glory to you TheBodziO \o/

As would my favourite Futurama character (One wouldn't say "Bender" after seeing my avatar, would one? ) said :

Bender:
- Worshippers? This ought to liven up my endless tragic voyage. [He laughs insanely.]

But seriously - thanks a bunch Grenshad!

gummibaerchen wrote:

@TheBodziO: WoW, I like that too

Nice to hear that .

gummibaerchen wrote:

btw, you may have a look at this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Koelnarena.jpg

Now... yes . IMHO simpler version as on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Areni_01.jpg is much nicer.

B wrote:

I must say you successfully integrated history . Nice gothic arch, but it still looks modern!

Thanks! That was my goal.

foxbunny · 2007-10-23 01:23:21

I added a bootsplash theme:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 41#p291441

Could someone tell me if those look okay (technically, that is)?

PJ · 2007-10-23 08:23:08

@foxbunny
I really like the: "Dramatically stylized 'Alpha' wrapping the yellow sphere that is the sun.". Yellow, black and grey are some nice colors.

foxbunny · 2007-10-23 13:25:12

I've attached a complete submission form to:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 41#p291441

Comments are most welcome...

PJ · 2007-10-23 13:55:52

foxbunny wrote:

I've attached a complete submission form to:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 41#p291441
Comments are most welcome...

Looks nice but I have some comments:
The base logo on black should IMO use the alternative color where it now use the secondary color. This will make the white outline unneeded, which I personally don't like. Might as well need a black (or at least a darker) thin outline between the circle and the arcs, just my 2 cents.

<Edit>
Actually it does look pretty good when it is used as if it where a light source behind as in the promo poster, but I don't like the outline style. I hope this makes some sense.
</Edit>

Last edited by PJ (2007-10-23 14:25:20)

thayer · 2007-10-23 14:13:45

foxbunny wrote:

I've attached a complete submission form to:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 41#p291441
Comments are most welcome...

Very nice, foxbunny. I think it's a more unique approach than the penguin was--not that I have anything against penguins, but they have been done many times before.

Regarding the tango specs, there's nothing that says you have to use the tango palette in order to be considered "proper" tango so I'd say your tango icons are just as tango as anyone elses

This from the their website: "Colors do not have to come exclusively from this set, as additional colors may be used. Starting from the base color and changing value, saturation or even hue slightly gives more consistent results that starting from arbitrary colors."

Cerebral · 2007-10-23 14:15:51

Just as regards to licensing - I mentioned in the ML that I basically winged it in the draft. We're discussing what to do, as I'm totally clueless with regards to this legal stuff. We definitely want to get this officially underway, but we want to make sure everyone's butt is covered.

Sorry for the delay.

Flying Saxman · 2007-10-23 15:13:44

just to be honest: I would prefer to keep the official logo (especially as I like the crystalized version), because even if your logos are very cool, it's still the official logo I like most. It is also the logo, that everyone knows from archlinux. And I don't think that any logo should take a complete takeover at once. Logos should take a natural evolution. You know what I'm trying to say? So if there is [i]really[/] the idea of changing the official logo from side of the developers, I'd prefer it to have a poll, which one to use (of course only with the best alternative logos AND the current logo). This distribution lives through it's community and so the community (including everyone using archlinux, also the developers of course) should decide, what logo to use. So no one can complain (not even me ).

FeatherMonkey · 2007-10-23 15:30:13

So many people say we like the original Logo concept but isn't a logo about attracting or representation to potential new users?

We aren't going to stop using it because we don't like the logo, it may well take us a while to get use to following the new logo.

But for the new users/next generation, which personally are the people I think it'll affect more. It'll make no difference if its so far removed from the original.

I'm sure many of these guys who work in the field can highlight examples of coporate logos that have been remade and not just touched up? Why when you have the chance should you not take it? Logo changing comes around so little.

Personally I think foxbunny latest is stunning even if I'm not keen on the Ubuntu orange But in context that is just captivating, I see that standing out in a crowd of logos easily.

foxbunny · 2007-10-23 16:01:17

The main point of HAVING a logo in the first place is the same as having a face. Sure, you can get by in life with a mask on 24/7, but what happens is people will not be able to (a) remember you, (b) have any kind of emotional response. As with faces, there are new faces and familiar ones. You may hate someone's face the first time you see them, but you may also grow to like them as the time goes by. Actually, provided the person has many other great qualities, the face becomes less important.

In our case, logo represents the Arch Linux distribution, as well as the people behind and around it — devs and the community. If logo is the face, we are the underlying organism it represents. From inside, the face is as familiar as it can get, but from outside, some may find it ugly, some may find it... nice. What we want to do is change our face so it presents us differently, for better or worse, and perhaps more accurately. That is what we, the designers, are hoping to achieve. The time, and only the time, can tell whether we have failed or not.

Also, the follow up is important. The new logo has to be consistently enforced (that's what we in the marketing call it) accross the different activities where it comes into contact with the general public. Not only the logo. The typography, colors, the basic graphical cues, swooshes, sharpness, brightness.

One of the primary reason I choose black, for example, is the impression of total darkness Arch gives us when we first install it. The terminal with very few light spots looks at us as if it will swallow us whole. It takes someone with knowledge and mental strength to deal with the situation (okay, I'm going a bit too far here), so the logo has to speak of that side of Arch as well. Not just the bling and shine, but the darker inner side of Arch.

Also, people should keep in mind that we humans are mostly bad judges of our own futures. We can't predict so much as if some new food will taste good to us or not, let alone if some highly abstract imagery will appeal to others in *various concrete situations* that it will be featured in. So don't over/underestimate the impact new logo will have, and don't over/underestimate the possible bad effect of removing the current logo. I'm totally positive you will be equally happy with it in 6 months (for better or worse).

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-23 16:11:29)

Arch Linux

#401 2007-10-22 08:16:39

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#402 2007-10-22 09:43:51

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#403 2007-10-22 09:54:17

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#404 2007-10-22 12:49:04

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#405 2007-10-22 17:12:40

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#406 2007-10-22 17:49:55

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#407 2007-10-22 17:53:45

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#408 2007-10-22 18:25:26

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#409 2007-10-22 18:40:02

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#410 2007-10-22 18:49:21

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#411 2007-10-22 20:08:35

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#412 2007-10-22 20:25:33

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#413 2007-10-22 22:07:54

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#414 2007-10-22 22:47:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#415 2007-10-22 23:17:24

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#416 2007-10-23 00:57:00

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#417 2007-10-23 01:23:21

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#418 2007-10-23 08:23:08

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#419 2007-10-23 13:25:12

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#420 2007-10-23 13:55:52

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#421 2007-10-23 14:13:45

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#422 2007-10-23 14:15:51

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#423 2007-10-23 15:13:44

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#424 2007-10-23 15:30:13

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#425 2007-10-23 16:01:17

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer