M. David Peterson
xmlhacker at gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 17:42:51 PDT 2005
Wow! This is really cool :)
On 6/29/05, ydnar <ydnar at shaderlab.com> wrote:
> I own the logo.
> The plan is to transfer the trademark/copyright/whatever to Six Apart (or
> some OpenID.org <http://OpenID.org>) so it can be CC licensed or similar.
> Something like Jon
> Hicks did with the Firefox logo.
> We honestly haven't fully discussed the trademark/licensing issues around
> the OpenID branding.
> My feelings on it fall somewhere between complete and total Public
> Domaining of the thing, but somewhere short of giving spammers and
> phishers something to tie their boats to. I'm also a wee bit protective of
> the lines. The logo is an evolution of something I've had for a while, and
> I'm not terribly keen on seeing it mangled.
> Then again, a logo is just a logo, and all good ones (or recognized ones,
> rather) eventually get repurposed, parodied, recolored, photocopied,
> redrawn, reinterpreted and otherwise mangled. I'm not going to get upset
> about it.
> Now having a badge that signifies some form of OpenID "certification" is
> something entirely different. That particular badging/nomenclature can and
> should be (c)/TM so someone (us) can nail someone for using it on a site
> with a crap implementation (for instance).
> That said, here are PDF, PNG, GIF and SWF versions of the logo, including
> color, whitespace, reverse and monochrome treatments:
> (don't use anything named *base or *old)
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, M. David Peterson wrote:
> > All excellent points... Lets see what becomes of it as I think youre
> > definitely spot on: it would be nice to be able to really nail the logo
> in a
> > way that a lot of people feel they have a bit of control and say over
> > they use to help visitors to their site gain an immediatte "We support
> > OpenID" understanding without causing that same user to initially
> > "is that OpenID???" and be forced to "try and see" before they know for
> > sure. Probably a bit extreme but not unfathonable.
> > It seems that the logical next step in promotion of a project such as
> > to the masses is to focus on that immediatte recognition factor that is
> > key... a lot of really good software never reaches anywhere close to its
> > potential because the project developers neglected this one very
> > element: how to we get users to first use this to then simply come to
> > a site of worth to support it. The best of the breed will literally
> > the end users that if a company (or in this case blog, wiki, website,
> > etc...) does not offer support then you are simply risking too much to
> > choose other alternative that simply do not come close to the "real
> > Brad, have you put much thought into this stage of the project and/or do
> > know someone in whom has made a career of accomplishing the "ideal"
> > mentioned above for His/Her clients? Not trying to jump in and volunteer
> > (although I will certainly do my part) as this person is definitely not
> > But it would seem that this person, whomever it might be, is "close by"
> > one of us and as such could easily be tapped to help promote what is the
> > obvious "Killer App" of the first half of 2005.
> > On 6/29/05, Dro Kulix <dro at drocore.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Branding consistency is something I completely forgot to mention,
> > > I was thinking about it when I asked the questions.
> > >
> > > In any case, what I meant by "childish" was simply in reference to
> > > entities who keep such a tight stranglehold on their branding
> > > that make even reasonable changes out of the question. For example, I
> > > don't generally keep the ugly (in some circumstances, anyway) yellow
> > > blue W3C validator logos on my sites. I would have reinterpreted the
> > > buttons in a striking vector monochrome, but W3C's logo policy forbids
> > > it. It's something I wouldn't even bother to contest, because W3C has
> > > such momentum that if I asked about it, some mail processing underling
> > > would just categorically tell me "no" and then, just for spite, link
> > > to the policy I've already read. So I simply use text links for the
> > > validators, which don't even display the logo and thus don't affect
> > > W3C's brand, for better or worse.
> > >
> > > I also wouldn't have asked if I figured the OI logo was just going to
> > > public domain outright. And I even think it's fair to exercise a
> > > certain degree of control over a mark of identity. But this is a mark
> > > of identity for an open, public, legally unencumbered protocol, where
> > > the homepage very explicitly says "Nobody should own this. Nobody's
> > > planning on making any money from this." So even a complete
> > > bastardization of the symbol morally reflects upon "nobody", save the
> > > modifier of the logo, right? (I know that's not pragmatically true,
> > > still.) At any rate, hopefully control over the logo (which I like in
> > > its default situation but which seems a little out of place even in
> > > form of the icons used on the LifeWiki, for example) is at least
> > > parallel in openness to the protocol itself, at least somehow open to
> > > artistic reinterpretation, even if that reinterpretation must be
> > > to review.
> > >
> > > Anyway, that's just philosophy, and I got curious.
> > >
> > > Thanks -- PSM
> > >
> > > > Not that I have any idea what Brad's feelings are on his logo it
> > > should be
> > > > pointed out theres a difference between childish intellectual
> > > > paradigms and branding consistency; if rules are put into place the
> > > latter
> > > > should never be confused with an individuals behavior having
> > > > tendencies and instead someone who is concerned that one person's
> > > subtle
> > > > changes do not necessarily equate to another's and as such allowing
> > > > broad
> > > > creative license in these matters can cause a TON of problems
> > > especially
> > > > when somebody somewhere along the way decides that they just dont
> > > > this
> > > > or that or whatever else, start from scratch, and begin using this
> > > > logo
> > > > with the idea that this is part of the creative right's given to
> > > as
> > > > part of the "license".
> > > >
> > > > Not that I am trying to create comotion or suggest your ideas have
> > > > merit.
> > > > They do for sure and I agree that changing the base color scheme can
> > > be
> > > > really helpful when it comes to site color coordination, etc.. But
> > > > seems
> > > > that there should then be a series of color schemes submitted by
> > > whomever
> > > > has interest, changing nothing else, of which Brad and those in whom
> > > he
> > > > chooses to help in the decision process can select those in which
> > > > feel
> > > > agree with the "spirit" of the original logo design and call them
> > > official
> > > > with the requirement that you can select any of the approved
> > > to
> > > > help match your site design but please leave things as is. If you
> > > think a
> > > > new design is important then create one and submit it to Brad for
> > > > consideration. Again, not that I know Brad or any of these guys
> > > > watching them develop this project at a pace I have NEVER witnessed
> > > before
> > > > now. So please don't take what I am suggesting and attach it to
> > > But
> > > > this is an area I do have a considerable amount of professional
> > > experience
> > > > in so I felt it was worth at least expressing my professional
> > > in
> > > > this area to be dealt with as the project developers see fit.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers :)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
M. David Peterson
[ http://www.xsltblog.com/ ][ http://www.xmlblogs.net ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the yadis