[U-Boot] Logo for U-Boot

[Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>]

On 06/11/2018 03:03 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 10:21:53PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 07:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 6 May 2018 at 12:31, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:49:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06.05.18 18:02, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/2018 11:18 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/04/2018 08:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/2018 01:04 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2018 11:57 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01.05.18 04:09, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/30/2018 08:22 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> U-Boot has currently no logo that we can use in presentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the U-Boot IRC channel the following propositions where made:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Source:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Circle-icons-submarine.svg
>>>>>>>>>>>> License: GPL2+
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Alex used this in some presentations.)
>>>>>>>>>>> Yellow submarine, nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should make it a bit more toward teal and orange to improve
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> contrast ? Although, maybe just replacing the depressive gray
>>>>>>>>>>> background
>>>>>>>>>>> with a light blue one would do.
>>>>>>>>>> How about this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    http://csgraf.de/tmp2/uboot.svg
>>>>>>>>> Lacks the teal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't want teal :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without teal, the contrast of the image isn't good enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I think you might want to check with more people, since clearly it's
>>>>>>> just the two of us discussing it now :)
>>>>>> Find Marek's darling appended
>>>>
>>>> It's a little hard to quote things inline like this.  But, did you
>>>> create your own image inspired by the wikimedia one?  I ask because the
>>>> wikimedia one is GPLv2 or later, but an original one that we could dual
>>>> license (for both a new framebuffer logo, and for printed materials,
>>>> etc, where a CC license works better) would be good.
>>>>
>>>>> I tend to agree that it looks nice :).
>>>>>
>>>>> It may mean we need a new web design too though, as the colors in the
>>>>> logo probably don't work terribly well with the current blue.
>>>>
>>>> We can worry about that later.
>>>
>>> I think the logo as here is fine:
>>>
>>> https://www.xypron.de/projects/u-boot/images/Circle-icons-submarine-orange-teal.svg
>>
>> This logo was GPLv2+. Tom, didn't you say we needed something with
>> creative commons license?
> 
> So, while I'm Not A Lawyer(TM), there is a reason lawyers have made
> licenses that are still "open source" but for other things.  One of the
> uses of a logo is to be printed.  What on earth does GPLv2 (or later)
> compliance look like for a brochure or a t-shirt?  That's not the
> (usual) spirit behind why you would put a license like that on a thing
> like this.  This is why currently projects use one of the Creative
> Commons 4.0 licenses for images, hardware design, etc.
> 
> And further pushing my "not a lawyer", it's generally accepted that you
> can go from CC-4.0 to GPLv3 (or later), you can't go the other
> direction.  And I'd also really rather not put people that want to use
> our logo in the position of worrying about what GPLv2 compliance on an
> image looks like (as it's not clear), I'm strongly in favor of a CC'd
> image.
> 
> If anyone can contact the actual author of the wikimedia image (it's not
> the person that uploaded it, I dug that far) and have them agree to
> re-license as CC, I'd be happy to go that route.  Thanks!
> 

I have raised that question on:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CFCF#Circle-icons-submarine.svg