On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > +1 sounds like a good idea > > Juergen > > Am Freitag, 17. Februar 2012 schrieb Rob Weir <[email protected]>: >> A request has come to the private list, asking permission to use the >> logo for a website. >> >> The request is not very detailed, but it looks like the link would be >> directing back to us for a download >> >> IMHO we would be well served by having two logos: >> >> 1) One that clearly identifies the AOO product and is used only for >> our official websites, authorized releases, etc. It is like our >> corporate seal (if we had one). It is a mark that indicates the >> authenticity of a product of this project, whether a software release, >> a website, a press release or whatever. We want there to be no >> confusion that when this logo is used, it vouched for the source of >> the item to which the logo is affixed. The source is the Apache >> OpenOffice project. >> >> 2) One or more other logos, perhaps based on the first, but distinct. >> Maybe a "Get Apache OpenOffice" logo, or similar. This would be a >> "friend of the project" logo, a "I <heart> AOO" logo, or "Powered by >> AOO"or similar that could be used more freely, with the only >> requirement being that the logo must always link to our homepage (or >> download page?) and to nothing else.
This is really tthree cases: a) A Get logo which is used to link to an official version. A website can link to OOo or AOO downloads. The "Get OpenOffice.org" logo at the bottom right corner of the User Forums is an example. b) An Includes logo which a CD/DVD/packager could indicate a valid release which can be verified through OOo or AOO. c) An Powered by logo to indicate that a repackaged version of AOO is being used. >> >> The nice thing about this approach is we can issue a blanket >> permission statement on the 2nd logo There are distinctions to make. Would we care about registering the use of these logos? Regards, Dave >> >> -Rob >>
