Chris Hoess wrote: > > In article <98p18.3576$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Trolling wrote: > > I'm not kidding .. try this link while it's still up: > > > > http://www.mozilla.org/party/1998/mozilla.gif > > >
Trolling: You saw the one that was literally lifted off the side of a WWII Yakovlev, right? I can't find the Mozilla commie graphics page right now after almost a second of half-looking, but here's the Yak paint scheme: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Yak1.jpg Probably used some new form of experimental Silly-Putty. > Well, let me take your posting record (rather than your handle) at face > value and assume you're interested in reasonable dialogue. > > 1) This issue has been argued over here. A lot. People's reaction to the > symbol tends to vary greatly. This may depend on how much they've been > exposed to Communism in life; I can't say. > It doesn't vary much at all actually. You have two main groups: 1. Those who are extremely offended by the blatant commie graphics and demand that they be replaced by any one of the many suitable replacements that have been offered over the years. 2. Apologists who are "practiced at the art of self-deception" (to put it needlessly kindly) and pitifully attempt to deny the blatant communist connections. Who am I missing? > 2) The people in charge of the logo are aware of this. I have seen no statements to that effect, nor any indication of what any "awareness" they may have of the issue may at some far future date result in. Of course they can't *not* be aware of it, but if you have some non-behind-closed-doors documentation to this effect, I know many of us here would love to see it. > They aren't > changing the logo right now, because there are legal issues involving the > distribution of the images under the MPL/GPL/LGPL conflicting with > Mozilla's desire to retain control over the logo. > Please. Make a new friggin' logo, or take one of the myriad already offered, and put it in there. AOL has the same rights to the new one as the old one, and the same rights to the old one that it always had. Even easier, pull down the commie banner page, which serves absolutely no purpose other than to offend. > 3) It has been intimated that the distribution of this logo in Mozilla > packages may already have deprived mozilla.org of control over the logo. And we go from Red Communism to Red Herring. AOL has complete control over what graphics are and are not part of the Mozilla distribution. What some hypothetical third party might do with the commie art has at no time concerned anybody here. > If this is so, the logo will have to be replaced once the licensing of the > images has been settled. > Ok, I'll bite even though that's completely spurious: Is there any commitment from the Powers that Be to do so at that time? Is there any indication whatsoever that they will? Again, I have seen nothing to that effect. > 4) The logo appears to have been formulated as, if anything, a mild parody > of Communism, not a declaration of sympathy. Looks like you're fitting into group #2 here. It's not just a single logo, it's also a whole page full of communist Maozilla "art", *and nothing but*. It would be outrageous if it wasn't so sophomoric. But where's the artist in all this? Haven't heard peep one from him/her. I say let's hear the artist's explanation as to where the commie vibe came from and what the hell he was thinking. > (Imagine the reaction of a > typical Marxist bureaucrat upon hearing the "Open Source Revolution" > compared to the Communist Revolution!) > Imagine his reaction when he learned that AOL owned the product, and (for a while at least) got people to work on it for *free*, and not even at the point of a PPSh-41. "Great Stalin's Ghost! What have *we* been doing wrong?!?!"
