| Revision as of 22:43, 8 July 2007 editSteveSims (talk | contribs)5,172 edits why alt. logo isn't a violation← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:35, 9 July 2007 edit undoJeandré du Toit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,684 edits →Why the alternative logo is not a copyright violation: infringingNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ===Why the alternative logo is not a copyright violation=== | ===Why the alternative logo is not a copyright violation=== | ||
| {{User:SteveSims/Storage/UbuntuIconNoViolation}} | {{User:SteveSims/Storage/UbuntuIconNoViolation}} | ||
| ::Remember that all content on Misplaced Pages except the Wikimedia foundation's project's logos can be used commercially according to the GFDL, and Ubuntu doesn't allow that with copies according to . While your image isn't a copy, if it's close enough to serve as an obvious replacement then I think it infringes. If it's not an obvious enough replacement then we shouldn't use it to indicate Ubuntu. We have no fair use defense since it's used in the user namespace. If you disagree please email the foundation's legal council. -- ], 2007-07-09]09:35z | |||
Revision as of 09:35, 9 July 2007
Debian logo.
Just a suggestion, but what about changing the colour of the debian logo, tilting it or adding something else (like a "derived from" text) to differentiate it? At first glance the debian logo is a bit misleading. --Outlyer 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- using the debian logo is inaccurate. this is approximately equivalent to using the red hat logo for a mandriva userbox. --Ptkfgs 07:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's right. The logo should be changed to something abstract -- pehaps the letter "U". Using the Debian logo here is simply incorrect. --mako 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Consider it done, Mako.--Mac Lover 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ubuntu logo.
If we can't use the Ubuntu logo, is File:Vista-folder ubuntu.png incorrectly tagged as GPL? -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t17:33z
- That file seems to be deleted. So I suppose the answer was yes -- but it doesn't really matter much now anyway. -- mako 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Alternative logos
I've created an alternative version of this template, which uses the generic Linux penguin. Feel free to use, modify, etc... -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
| Userbox | WP:TGS Template | ||
|
{{User:Gaius Octavius/Userboxes/UbuPenguin}}
|
If you do make any changes (or have suggestions), please leave a message on my Talk page. I'd love to see 'em! -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've made an Ubuntu logo-like logo:
| Userbox | WP:TGS Template | ||
|
{{template:user ubuntu}}
|
SteveSims 06:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Why the alternative logo is not a copyright violation
- It has four main colors; Canonical's has three colors total.
- It has four "children"; Canonical's has only three children.
- These children's heads overlap their "arms" on both sides. In Canonical's logo, not only do they not intersect but they do not even touch; nowhere in Canonical's logo do different colors touch, except due to anti-aliasing.
- The colors are in completely different positions.
- These children are separated by 90 degrees (a consequence of having an additional child) while Canonical's are separated by 120 degrees.
- Three of the four main colors used in this logo are not used in Canonical's.
- This logo has additional colors, mainly on the outside edge of the large "circle" (see next reason)
where the children's arms meet their "heads." Canonical's does not.
- These children align with the directions on a compass; Canonical's do not.
- These children's arms are created by dividing a large sixteen-sided polygon; Canonical's are made by dividing a large circle.
- These children's heads are much larger than Canonical's, and their arms are much smaller and proportionately wider.
- This image transitions much less smoothly to transparent than Canonical's.
- Remember that all content on Misplaced Pages except the Wikimedia foundation's project's logos can be used commercially according to the GFDL, and Ubuntu doesn't allow that with copies according to . While your image isn't a copy, if it's close enough to serve as an obvious replacement then I think it infringes. If it's not an obvious enough replacement then we shouldn't use it to indicate Ubuntu. We have no fair use defense since it's used in the user namespace. If you disagree please email the foundation's legal council. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-09t09:35z