Thread titleRepliesLast modified
TODOs018:14, 20 November 2011
Other guidelines022:10, 16 November 2011
Logo artwork license022:09, 16 November 2011
  • [boud] page 2, point 1: would Nokia be able to use the Calligra logo in the about box (if any) or promotional literature (if any) for the Harmattan Documents application? I'm not sure, but I would love seeing the logo used in connection with that app. Same for SKF: they use Calligra in their app, could they put the logo in their about box or manual? (Without the interference of the e.V. membership who are, I'm afraid, very prone to perpetual indecision.) Can I use the Calligra logo on the KO GmbH homepage to link to the calligra website? Can we use it in the experimental windows installer?
  • [boud] Point 2 would say "yes", but then the "decided using the rules in 1." thing makes it hard to figure out. I feel this needs to be clarified.
Nov 18: removed the eV approval line
Nov 18: clarified lots of things, reviewed by Boud and proofread 
        by Irina
  • [boud] Page 3: I'd still prefer to speak about black on white, or white on suitably dark backgrounds, but I am willing to defer to Evgeny's opinion on this.
Nov 18: added alternative very dark colors
  • [cyrille] one slight comment, you define a minimum size in centimeters, but that we might need a size definition for use on a screen (ie website).
Nov 18: changed to: 
Artwork sizes
The Calligra Suite logo is available in a range of sizes. The minimum  
size for the logo for printouts is 40x24mm or 55x39mm with clearance 
zone, as shown. For screens it is 100x71 pixels.
+added info about size in pixels to the graphics
22:02, 16 November 2011

Logo artwork license

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

Notes (js): Now this makes me thinking that the 'easy way' would be to declare the artwork under one license and it is enough to have CC-BY-SA 3.0 and nothing else. [side note: Not the LGPL as this license really never was either a requirement for use in or aside of a (L)GPL software. It's use in KDE comes from habits more than enforcing anything that is not in free CC licenses. Artists prefer the CC after all.]

To check requirements of the most demanding group, debian-legal, (already mentioned in the thread not once) I found out that CC-BY-SA 2.0 is not only approved by Debian Free Software Guidelines but approved as a "big license", i.e. recommended [1]. History of the approval

Why only CC? Interesting fact worth adding, excerpt from the CC-BY-SA 3.0 [2] indicating that distortion of the logo cannot be performed to harm/alter our visual identity (intentional or not):

4.d. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. [..]

There's noting like 'distortion' term in LGPL because it's about code, not content.

Thus I'd like to ask if there are any objections to make the logo CC-BY-SA 3.0 -licensed and if there are, propose voting on the logo licensing and move to next tasks.

22:01, 16 November 2011

This page was last edited on 16 November 2011, at 21:57. Content is available under Creative Commons License SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.