CentOS docs - Oct 2018 - [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes

On 09/18/2018 11:03 AM, Fabiano Fid?ncio wrote:
> My understanding is that we can use all the CentOS marks provided here[0].
> However, those unfortunately are not looking good enough on Boxes and
> we'd like to use, if possible, just the logo as in here[1]
> 
> Would that be possible? As far as I could understand that would be a
> violation of the trademark.
> 
> [0]:
https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo#head-bf605cecf99c819d5a39e726ffb928999e1a13e6
> [1]:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CentOS#/media/File:CentOS_color_logo.svg
Hi Fabiano,

Thanks for clarifying and that connects with what Rich said about how
we've used just the graphic logo mark in practice but do not have a
guideline that allows that on the ArtWork wiki.

This item is actually on my short list of things to clarify for the
trademark guidelines and updates on the ArtWork page.

For the moment, we can pursue a specific permission for GNOME Boxes.
Can you provide a mock-up of how it would appear on the page?

I'm looking at https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Boxes but am not sure how it
would appear.  Am I correct that the logo would appear when running the
GNOME Boxes application inside of a GNOME session?  If yes, is there
also a corresponding use on the website?  A mock-up from there would be
useful as well.

Knowing that this has been missed for a few months, I'll work through
the discussions on our side to expedite a decision for you.

Regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20180918/b4314713/attachment-0002.sig>

El 18/9/18 a las 20:07, Karsten Wade escribi?:
> On 09/18/2018 11:03 AM, Fabiano Fid?ncio wrote:
>> My understanding is that we can use all the CentOS marks provided
here[0].
>> However, those unfortunately are not looking good enough on Boxes and
>> we'd like to use, if possible, just the logo as in here[1]
>>
>> Would that be possible? As far as I could understand that would be a
>> violation of the trademark.
>>
>> [0]:
https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo#head-bf605cecf99c819d5a39e726ffb928999e1a13e6
>> [1]:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CentOS#/media/File:CentOS_color_logo.svg
> Hi Fabiano,
>
> Thanks for clarifying and that connects with what Rich said about how
> we've used just the graphic logo mark in practice but do not have a
> guideline that allows that on the ArtWork wiki.
>
> This item is actually on my short list of things to clarify for the
> trademark guidelines and updates on the ArtWork page.
>
> For the moment, we can pursue a specific permission for GNOME Boxes.
> Can you provide a mock-up of how it would appear on the page?
>
> I'm looking at https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Boxes but am not sure how it
> would appear.  Am I correct that the logo would appear when running the
> GNOME Boxes application inside of a GNOME session?  If yes, is there
> also a corresponding use on the website?  A mock-up from there would be
> useful as well.
>
> Knowing that this has been missed for a few months, I'll work through
> the discussions on our side to expedite a decision for you.
 From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the 
difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the 
link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
BTW, that is the logo only;

Pablo.

On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebasti?n Greco wrote:
> From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the
> difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the
> link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a
specific logo was prepared.  In this case, the permission has been
requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the ArtWork
page.
> BTW, that is the logo only;
There are two aspects here:

1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without
the wordmark?

2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to make
it explicit what can and cannot be done.

For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there may
be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand-alone
in various situations.  For this I am seeking expert advice.

As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of just
the logo, point 5 here:

https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses

But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork page.

What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of
permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and ii)
fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark
guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.

Best regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20180919/ec7a5c75/attachment-0002.sig>

Hi all,

There is now a draft permission letter working it's way through the
CentOS Board.  It is intended to cover permission for just the GNOME
Project's use with GNOME Boxes.

I am still pursuing resolving this within the guidelines, that will take
more time.

Best regards,

- Karsten

On 10/16/2018 07:10 AM, Fabiano Fid?ncio wrote:
> People,
> 
> On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>> On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebasti?n Greco wrote:
>>> From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what
is
>>> the
>>> difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of
>>> the
>>> link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
>>
>> Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a
>> specific logo was prepared.  In this case, the permission has been
>> requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the
>> ArtWork
>> page.
>>
>>> BTW, that is the logo only;
>>
>> There are two aspects here:
>>
>> 1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without
>> the wordmark?
>>
>> 2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to
>> make
>> it explicit what can and cannot be done.
>>
>> For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there
>> may
>> be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand-
>> alone
>> in various situations.  For this I am seeking expert advice.
>>
>> As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of
>> just
>> the logo, point 5 here:
>>
>> https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses
>>
>> But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork
>> page.
>>
>> What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of
>> permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and
>> ii)
>> fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark
>> guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.
> 
> Any news here?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20181031/bee1c67d/attachment-0006.sig>

Karsten,

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:06 PM Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There is now a draft permission letter working it's way through the
> CentOS Board.  It is intended to cover permission for just the GNOME
> Project's use with GNOME Boxes.
This is *really* good news!
>
> I am still pursuing resolving this within the guidelines, that will take
> more time.
What does it mean, exactly?
Does it mean that a logo, as the one done for docker, will be prepared
for Boxes usage meanwhile or that we'll have to solve the guidelines
issues as the first thing?

Thanks a lot for helping us here!
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Karsten
>
> On 10/16/2018 07:10 AM, Fabiano Fid?ncio wrote:
> > People,
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> >> On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebasti?n Greco wrote:
> >>> From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal,
what is
> >>> the
> >>> difference between this instance and what was done in point
7.3 of
> >>> the
> >>> link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
> >>
> >> Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a
> >> specific logo was prepared.  In this case, the permission has been
> >> requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the
> >> ArtWork
> >> page.
> >>
> >>> BTW, that is the logo only;
> >>
> >> There are two aspects here:
> >>
> >> 1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used
without
> >> the wordmark?
> >>
> >> 2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines
to
> >> make
> >> it explicit what can and cannot be done.
> >>
> >> For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but
there
> >> may
> >> be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand-
> >> alone
> >> in various situations.  For this I am seeking expert advice.
> >>
> >> As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of
> >> just
> >> the logo, point 5 here:
> >>
> >> https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses
> >>
> >> But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork
> >> page.
> >>
> >> What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question
of
> >> permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development,
and
> >> ii)
> >> fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark
> >> guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.
> >
> > Any news here?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
>
> --
> Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
> Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
> https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
> gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig
>
Best Regards,
-- 
Fabiano Fid?ncio