Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:16:21 -0800 (PST) From: stheg olloydson <stheg_olloydson@yahoo.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: The only worthwhile logo-related comments so far.... Message-ID: <20050213001621.59515.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
it was cried into the wilderness of rancor by Dag-Erling Smørgrav on Fri Feb 11 09:30:50 2005: <snip> >Likewise, Beastie is a mascot, not a logo. In fact, it fails the >primary and most important test of logoness: it is not exclusive to >the FreeBSD project, but is shared by all BSD projects. It also fails >several other important tests of logoness: it is not under the FreeBSD >project's direct control (our use of it is subject to the whim and >mercy of Kirk McKusick); it is not a registered trademark; it is >probably too diluted already to even be eligible to be registered as a >trademark. <snip> FINALLY! A worthwhile point of view - not obscured by emotion or reproduction mumbo-jumbo! These are extremely important points, the most important being Beastie doesn't belong to FreeBSD in any way, shape, or form. This fact renders all other arguments moot. Forget all of the "tradition", "offense", "professional", etc. time-wasting, bandwidth consuming crapola that's been posted on this topic. I submit that whether or not replacing Beastie as FBSD's main symbol is a good idea is irrelevant. It is _necessary_. A company needs to exclusively control an undiluted brand identifier. Does anyone know of a business, other than the odd one person or family run shop that doesn't have that? Would you trust a friend to hold the rights to your logo (mascot, whatever)? Then why should FreeBSD? Of course, the Project could buy the rights to Beastie, but then we run into the "dilution" problem Mr. Smørgrav mentions. The image is non-exclusive to FBSD. Even worse, I recall a post on questions@ by someone reporting its use by a condom machine company in England and Wales. Trying to enforce clear trademark use is hard enough. For the Project to go after unauthorized use of Beastie would be expensive and probably impossible. So there it is. Mr. Smørgrav should be thanked for a business-based reason for the change by making an irrefutable argument. Those that STILL disagree should consult a lawyer that specializes in intellectual property law. Still going to use Beastie when I can, Stheg P.S. My agreement with Mr. Smørgrav's argument should not be construed as agreeing with what many (me included) perceive as the sneaky way this issue has been handled. Based on the comments from the few commiters that made comments on this topic, a discussion took place among the commiters who then unilaterally made the decision. As is obvious, this was a very bad idea. I propose that in the future, such discussions be held on a special-use list to avoid the appearance of "you're neither important nor smart enough to discuss this" and to prevent the list-pollution we are now seeing on questions@. P.P.S. Whether you agree with my position on this or not, will those who comments on this topic have devolved into "I'm going to make my point to that idiot yet" posts PLEASE TAKE IT OFF QUESTIONS@? Your one-upmanship makes both sides look stupid and makes useful information, like Mr. Smørgrav's points, difficult to find. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050213001621.59515.qmail>