Hi guys, Thank you ttoine, for being as transparent as you can, it is highly appreciated. I fear It does look like they might be using the malformed CoF and the woodmark does appear to be different from the official one. You will find the appropriate source-files here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-art/ubuntustudio-artwork/current-standard Thank you Thomas for being concerned about the visual-identity and thoroughly checking the details. However, AFAIK the CoF is ok to use on a white background, as you will see in the branch above. Finally thank you Ralf for pointing out the responsibility that comes with endorsement. While i do _not_ think that a license in purity is required to address social/environmental/ethical issues, i think there are ways to address these issues that are better than others. My personal relation to you, Ralf, allows me to see through your currently very unpleasant tone and mentally "hear" your fundamentally good intentions, but i cringe a bit when i put myself in the shoes of other people reading you. I cannot speak for ttoine, but i think he means "ubuntustudio devel-team" when he says "we" in this context. I know you don't see yourself as a part of this team, Ralf, but as long as you will participate in discussions here, you become a team-member in the eye of the list-readers. If you want to continue to discuss things here with us, i kindly ask you to use a different, less absolute approach and to mind your tone. Yours, humbly pleading guilty to imperfection, -- Set Hallstrom aka sakrecoer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
