2011/1/17 Michael Grosberg <grosberg.michael@...400...>:
I'm assuming the guy didn't ask for permission and I bet he didn't follow the GPL license. I just thought to bring this to your attention.
GPL license for artwork makes sense in narrow circumstances only, for example an SVG icon theme where you consider the SVG files to be the source. Any display of rasterized GPL artwork that does not have a link to the SVG version in the immediate vicinity is theoretically a license violation. A better way of enforcing correct use of the logo is a trademark, but that might be expensive.
2011/1/17 Hinerangi Courtenay <duckgoesoink@...400...>:
Personally I really don't like the use of the faux 3D icon as a logo for the website - in my mockups I've been using the flat 2D version, because it follows logo design principles - clean, timeless, simple, recognizable, universal. (icon != logo)
There is nothing wrong with having more than one version of the logo for different mediums, as long as the logo remains recognizable (and in our case it does). The faux 3D icon is richer and better looking than the simple black and white ink-mountain symbol. I think that for a website, using the 3D icon is good. For other mediums that can't satisfactorily reproduce the 3D icon, we can use the flat symbol (icon with all filters removed).
Regards, Krzysztof