Long term logo, name, identity discussion
So, I think this whole thing has brought up issues with all these topics. Probably stuff that we should start resolving.
I think the first thing that we need to determine is who owns them now.
The name, I'm pretty sure that's Mental's.
The logo, I think there is probably a few people owning Copyright there. I remember coming into IRC and Mental showing me the logo, but I don't really know what went on before that. Also, with the latest revamp of the logo, who did that? Was it Andy?
Let's get this first. What does everyone else think?
Also, I hope that I didn't offend anyone by suggesting it was okay to use the logo when I don't have any claims of copyright of the work. I didn't mean to -- I'm just excited about the idea of having a printed Inkscape work (in English -- the French one was cool at LGM, but not useful to me)
--Ted
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:18 -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
I think the first thing that we need to determine is who owns them now.
Well, who came up with them isn't necessarily quite the same as who "owns" them, from the perspective of a trademark, which is effectively what we need to be thinking about here.
The name, I'm pretty sure that's Mental's.
I came up with it, yes.
The logo, I think there is probably a few people owning Copyright there. I remember coming into IRC and Mental showing me the logo, but I don't really know what went on before that. Also, with the latest revamp of the logo, who did that? Was it Andy?
All four of us worked on the logo; Andy, Bryce and I did the revamp.
Also, I hope that I didn't offend anyone by suggesting it was okay to use the logo when I don't have any claims of copyright of the work. I didn't mean to -- I'm just excited about the idea of having a printed Inkscape work (in English -- the French one was cool at LGM, but not useful to me)
Again, it's really an issue of trademark (if anything) rather than copyright.
We probably do need to think about asserting trademark on the name and logo, probably with some permissive policy as Linus has done for the Linux trademark.
One thing we would need to show is that we are using the trademark in commerce somehow, at least in a token way.
-mental
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 10:28 -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:18 -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
I think the first thing that we need to determine is who owns them now.
Well, who came up with them isn't necessarily quite the same as who "owns" them, from the perspective of a trademark, which is effectively what we need to be thinking about here.
True, but I think in this case probably the closest thing we'll have to traceability is who created them.
The logo, I think there is probably a few people owning Copyright there. I remember coming into IRC and Mental showing me the logo, but I don't really know what went on before that. Also, with the latest revamp of the logo, who did that? Was it Andy?
All four of us worked on the logo; Andy, Bryce and I did the revamp.
So, perhaps we need to get everyone involved to sign over their copyright to the foundation? Does that make sense?
We probably do need to think about asserting trademark on the name and logo, probably with some permissive policy as Linus has done for the Linux trademark.
One thing we would need to show is that we are using the trademark in commerce somehow, at least in a token way.
I've talked with SFC about setting up the Cafepress store. They're looking into as other groups have asked about it also. I think that should be sufficient, if we sold "Inkscape merchandise". Perhaps we could put the software on CD there also -- don't know who'd buy it, but it'd be available. I guess, probably your store would already be sufficient.
--Ted
participants (2)
-
MenTaLguY -
Ted Gould