Wow! This is really cool :)<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/29/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">ydnar</b> <<a href="mailto:ydnar@shaderlab.com">ydnar@shaderlab.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I own the logo.<br><br>The plan is to transfer the trademark/copyright/whatever to Six Apart (or<br>some <a href="http://OpenID.org">OpenID.org</a>) so it can be CC licensed or similar. Something like Jon<br>Hicks did with the Firefox logo.
<br><br>We honestly haven't fully discussed the trademark/licensing issues around<br>the OpenID branding.<br><br>My feelings on it fall somewhere between complete and total Public<br>Domaining of the thing, but somewhere short of giving spammers and
<br>phishers something to tie their boats to. I'm also a wee bit protective of<br>the lines. The logo is an evolution of something I've had for a while, and<br>I'm not terribly keen on seeing it mangled.<br><br>Then again, a logo is just a logo, and all good ones (or recognized ones,
<br>rather) eventually get repurposed, parodied, recolored, photocopied,<br>redrawn, reinterpreted and otherwise mangled. I'm not going to get upset<br>about it.<br><br>Now having a badge that signifies some form of OpenID "certification" is
<br>something entirely different. That particular badging/nomenclature can and<br>should be (c)/TM so someone (us) can nail someone for using it on a site<br>with a crap implementation (for instance).<br><br>That said, here are PDF, PNG, GIF and SWF versions of the logo, including
<br>color, whitespace, reverse and monochrome treatments:<br><br><a href="http://akiba.shaderlab.com/openid/">http://akiba.shaderlab.com/openid/</a><br><br>(don't use anything named *base or *old)<br><br><br>Cheers,<br>y<br>
<br><br><br>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, M. David Peterson wrote:<br><br>> All excellent points... Lets see what becomes of it as I think youre<br>> definitely spot on: it would be nice to be able to really nail the logo in a
<br>> way that a lot of people feel they have a bit of control and say over what<br>> they use to help visitors to their site gain an immediatte "We support<br>> OpenID" understanding without causing that same user to initially question
<br>> "is that OpenID???" and be forced to "try and see" before they know for<br>> sure. Probably a bit extreme but not unfathonable.<br>><br>> It seems that the logical next step in promotion of a project such as this
<br>> to the masses is to focus on that immediatte recognition factor that is<br>> key... a lot of really good software never reaches anywhere close to its<br>> potential because the project developers neglected this one very important
<br>> element: how to we get users to first use this to then simply come to expect<br>> a site of worth to support it. The best of the breed will literally convince<br>> the end users that if a company (or in this case blog, wiki, website,
<br>> etc...) does not offer support then you are simply risking too much to<br>> choose other alternative that simply do not come close to the "real thing".<br>><br>> Brad, have you put much thought into this stage of the project and/or do you
<br>> know someone in whom has made a career of accomplishing the "ideal"<br>> mentioned above for His/Her clients? Not trying to jump in and volunteer<br>> (although I will certainly do my part) as this person is definitely not me.
<br>> But it would seem that this person, whomever it might be, is "close by" to<br>> one of us and as such could easily be tapped to help promote what is the<br>> obvious "Killer App" of the first half of 2005.
<br>><br>> On 6/29/05, Dro Kulix <<a href="mailto:dro@drocore.com">dro@drocore.com</a>> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Branding consistency is something I completely forgot to mention, though<br>> > I was thinking about it when I asked the questions.
<br>> ><br>> > In any case, what I meant by "childish" was simply in reference to other<br>> > entities who keep such a tight stranglehold on their branding strategies<br>> > that make even reasonable changes out of the question. For example, I
<br>> > don't generally keep the ugly (in some circumstances, anyway) yellow and<br>> > blue W3C validator logos on my sites. I would have reinterpreted the<br>> > buttons in a striking vector monochrome, but W3C's logo policy forbids
<br>> > it. It's something I wouldn't even bother to contest, because W3C has<br>> > such momentum that if I asked about it, some mail processing underling<br>> > would just categorically tell me "no" and then, just for spite, link me
<br>> > to the policy I've already read. So I simply use text links for the<br>> > validators, which don't even display the logo and thus don't affect<br>> > W3C's brand, for better or worse.<br>> >
<br>> > I also wouldn't have asked if I figured the OI logo was just going to be<br>> > public domain outright. And I even think it's fair to exercise a<br>> > certain degree of control over a mark of identity. But this is a mark
<br>> > of identity for an open, public, legally unencumbered protocol, where<br>> > the homepage very explicitly says "Nobody should own this. Nobody's<br>> > planning on making any money from this." So even a complete
<br>> > bastardization of the symbol morally reflects upon "nobody", save the<br>> > modifier of the logo, right? (I know that's not pragmatically true, but<br>> > still.) At any rate, hopefully control over the logo (which I like in
<br>> > its default situation but which seems a little out of place even in the<br>> > form of the icons used on the LifeWiki, for example) is at least somehow<br>> > parallel in openness to the protocol itself, at least somehow open to
<br>> > artistic reinterpretation, even if that reinterpretation must be subject<br>> > to review.<br>> ><br>> > Anyway, that's just philosophy, and I got curious.<br>> ><br>> > Thanks -- PSM
<br>> ><br>> > > Not that I have any idea what Brad's feelings are on his logo it<br>> > should be<br>> > > pointed out theres a difference between childish intellectual property<br>> > > paradigms and branding consistency; if rules are put into place the
<br>> > latter<br>> > > should never be confused with an individuals behavior having childish<br>> > > tendencies and instead someone who is concerned that one person's<br>> > subtle<br>> > > changes do not necessarily equate to another's and as such allowing a
<br>> > > broad<br>> > > creative license in these matters can cause a TON of problems<br>> > especially<br>> > > when somebody somewhere along the way decides that they just dont like<br>
> > > this<br>> > > or that or whatever else, start from scratch, and begin using this new<br>> > > logo<br>> > > with the idea that this is part of the creative right's given to them<br>
> > as<br>> > > part of the "license".<br>> > ><br>> > > Not that I am trying to create comotion or suggest your ideas have no<br>> > > merit.<br>> > > They do for sure and I agree that changing the base color scheme can
<br>> > be<br>> > > really helpful when it comes to site color coordination, etc.. But it<br>> > > seems<br>> > > that there should then be a series of color schemes submitted by<br>> > whomever
<br>> > > has interest, changing nothing else, of which Brad and those in whom<br>> > he<br>> > > chooses to help in the decision process can select those in which they<br>> > > feel<br>> > > agree with the "spirit" of the original logo design and call them
<br>> > official<br>> > > with the requirement that you can select any of the approved graphics<br>> > to<br>> > > help match your site design but please leave things as is. If you<br>> > think a
<br>> > > new design is important then create one and submit it to Brad for<br>> > > consideration. Again, not that I know Brad or any of these guys beyond<br>> > > watching them develop this project at a pace I have NEVER witnessed
<br>> > before<br>> > > now. So please don't take what I am suggesting and attach it to them.<br>> > But<br>> > > this is an area I do have a considerable amount of professional<br>> > experience
<br>> > > in so I felt it was worth at least expressing my professional opinions<br>> > in<br>> > > this area to be dealt with as the project developers see fit.<br>> > ><br>> > > Cheers :)
<br>> > ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>><br>><br>><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br><br>-- <br><M:D/><br><br>M. David Peterson<br>[ <a href="http://www.xsltblog.com/">http://www.xsltblog.com/
</a> ][ <a href="http://www.xmlblogs.net">http://www.xmlblogs.net</a> ]