From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:33:51 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot logo In-Reply-To: <1238144841.6667.10.camel@ess-roelvp> (Roeland Van Praet's message of "Fri\, 27 Mar 2009 10\:07\:20 +0100") References: <87ljqsgkkz.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20090326212557.731e231a@surf> <87myb7fj8x.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <1238144841.6667.10.camel@ess-roelvp> Message-ID: <87hc1cdsyo.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Roeland" == Roeland Van Praet writes: Roeland> Hi, Roeland> Just my 2 cents: I like the logo a lot and I think it's a Roeland> very good idea to have an own logo of Buildroot. Thanks. Roeland> Now I'm wondering if it is possible to put this logo on the Roeland> website of the company I work for? We use a lot of Roeland> technologies, including Buildroot, which we promote on the Roeland> website. Since our core bussiness is consultancy in free Roeland> and open source software, Buildroot is an often used Roeland> solution. Roeland> Do you agree with this? Do you think the logo is in a final Roeland> state or not? And if the logo changes, will the URL Roeland> eventually be the same as it is now? Yes, that should be fine, as long as BR isn't misrepresented. I haven't heard any big criticism of the logo, so I think you can consider it pretty much final. The idea is to keep the URL constant. I guess we should come up with a license for the logo, like creative commons attribute or the Debian logo license which goes: Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest this logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. That seems directly transferable to buildroot - What does the rest of you say? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard