[Clipart] deleted files - proper useable logo's

[Bryce Harrington]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:10:42PM +0200, Jurgentje wrote:
> Well, I daresay there can be a clear stock of logo's that are not
> corporate logo's. I'm thinking of a danger sign, all common signs for
> wheelchair users, explosive, traffic signs, landmark signs, sign
> language, etc...

I think I'd use the term "symbols" for these.  Logos sort of imply
something particular to a company or organization, that is part of their
identity.

As an example, consider the RedHat logo, with its red fedora.  This is
trademarked and so we can't include it.  We can, however, have a fedora
that is distinctively different - maybe it's blue, has a dent in the
side, and is tilted a different direction.  But that wouldn't be a logo,
it'd be an 'article of clothing', and would belong in a different
category.
 
> Maybe a (sub)folder "symbols and public logo's" could be a good idea?

For things that are truly general, like the wheelchair symbol, I think
they can go in signs_and_symbols just fine.  I think avoiding having a
logo category will avoid confusion in the long term.  I.e., if we are
telling people we don't accept logos but then have a logo category, it
sends a mixed message that will confuse contributors.  Better in my mind
is to keep it strict and simple - no logos.  No tuxes, no debian swirls,
not even our own open clip art logo submissions.

A possible benefit of being so exclusionary of logos is that it may
establish a noticeable gap in open source.  Someone will say, "Hey, this
open clip art library is great, but they haven't got ANY logos...  I
think I'll start a logo library."  By OCAL actively doing _less_ in this
area, it may result in something much better in the long run, by making
room for someone else to specialize in a logo collection.

Of course, in the near term, this strategy means that users needing
logos are going to starve a bit, but hopefully this'll just accelerate
encouraging someone to start something up that much more.

Bryce