Hi,
I wonder why Nicu does not adds in the same page *the truth* about how things happened (it is revealed in the issue). :-)
I'd suggest that he adds below the explanations in his page, in the same clear manner, the exact history of how the elements in the splashscreen appeared.
1. The original image which we chose at presellection.
2. A line of text saying that after a day we stopped the voting and we have asked all the authors edit the screens and to include the Sun logo, credits, copyright text. Therefore, the suspected author had to move things around to accomodate our request but preserve the design.
3. And the final image which has been voted by thousands of people and NONE of them sent any comment anywhere about this problem.
ALSO:
- because Nicu is such a magnificent graphician, I would like him to come with at least 5 different proposals about how else the above elements (OOo logo + Sun logo + credits + copyright) can be placed in that image's white space so that the design (especially the background with the lines) is not altered/touched but the splashscreen still looks great.
Thanks.
Cristian
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
http://ro-ooo.blogspot.com/2005/02/plagiarism-english.html
The history of Brendan's image thoroughly discredits the implicit claim you seemingly are making of plagiarism. That is, Brendan began with an image that bore little resemblance to Adobe and it only came to bear a passing resemblance to Adobe's logo when he was asked to include the Sun name.
the history, has no relevance, in the end we have one final image image, this will be exposed to the public and this is what they will judge. to you think the milions of people downloading the software will know or care about that history?
The images have some superficial resemblance. They have lines and
curves. However, Brendan's is not about a man casting a net but about
the stylized gulls and waves.
OpenOffice.org stands by its choice. I should think you would want to
this is fine, people should assume their acts
support your project, not attack it.
i'm sure pointing to a mistake is not attacking the project
To be sure it is not attacking the project to point out mistakes; that
helps us, and we appreciate any one who does so in good faith, with the
aim of helping the project.
In this instance, there was no mistake: not in the people's choice, not in our actions. We stood by the image chosen by the many who voted and we are happy with the choice.
Regards, Louis
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Cristian DRIGA -- www.openoffice.org ro.openoffice.org marketing.openoffice.org/art/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
