[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Buildroot developers,

We have a nice recognizable logo that illustrates what Buildroot is
about. Being far from expert (or even amateur) in graphic design, I find it
perfect. But when Hadas Cohen, SolidRun's graphic designer, considered using
the Buildroot logo in a brochure, she noticed a problem. It turns out that a
realistic picture is no go for logo design. As a result she could not use the
logo as is, because it looks markedly different than other logos in the
brochure.

Hadas referred me to this professional looking explanation of why photograph
is not a good choice for a logo:

  https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1270284

Hadas also collected a few hundred random logos to demonstrate the point:

  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/2616906744_a238697a95_b.jpg

SolidRun management agreed to let Hadas design an iconic pictograph version of
the Buildroot logo. Here is the result.

Two colored logo alternatives:

  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo.png
  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo2.png

Two monochromatic alternatives:

  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png

Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.

What do you think?

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Baruch" == Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> writes:

 > Hi Buildroot developers,
 > We have a nice recognizable logo that illustrates what Buildroot is
 > about. Being far from expert (or even amateur) in graphic design, I find it
 > perfect. But when Hadas Cohen, SolidRun's graphic designer, considered using
 > the Buildroot logo in a brochure, she noticed a problem. It turns out that a
 > realistic picture is no go for logo design. As a result she could not use the
 > logo as is, because it looks markedly different than other logos in the
 > brochure.

 > Hadas referred me to this professional looking explanation of why photograph
 > is not a good choice for a logo:

 >   https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1270284

 > Hadas also collected a few hundred random logos to demonstrate the point:

 >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/2616906744_a238697a95_b.jpg

 > SolidRun management agreed to let Hadas design an iconic pictograph version of
 > the Buildroot logo. Here is the result.

 > Two colored logo alternatives:

 >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo.png
 >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo2.png

 > Two monochromatic alternatives:

 >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
 >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png

 > Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.

 > What do you think?

I also don't really know anything about graphics design, but I like
them! Thanks!

Anyone disagrees, otherwise please send a patch adding the SVG to the
repo (and if you feel up to it, update the website as well).

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:37:26 +0200
Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> wrote:

>  > Hadas referred me to this professional looking explanation of why photograph
>  > is not a good choice for a logo:  
> 
>  >   https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1270284  
> 
>  > Hadas also collected a few hundred random logos to demonstrate the point:  
> 
>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/2616906744_a238697a95_b.jpg  
> 
>  > SolidRun management agreed to let Hadas design an iconic pictograph version of
>  > the Buildroot logo. Here is the result.  
> 
>  > Two colored logo alternatives:  
> 
>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo.png
>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo2.png  
> 
>  > Two monochromatic alternatives:  
> 
>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png  
> 
>  > Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.  
> 
>  > What do you think?  
> 
> I also don't really know anything about graphics design, but I like
> them! Thanks!
> 
> Anyone disagrees, otherwise please send a patch adding the SVG to the
> repo (and if you feel up to it, update the website as well).

First of all, thanks a lot Baruch for proposing those logos, and many
thanks Hadas for working on them! I understand the idea that our logo
being a photograph makes it not the best logo, so I like your proposal
of a pictograph version.

As I am not a native English speaker and not at all a graphics/design
expert, it's a bit difficult to put words on how I feel about the logo
proposal. While I like the idea, I find the design a bit "coarse",
maybe too "pictographic". I know this feeling is not very helpful as-is
because it doesn't say what needs to be fixed or improved.

In any case, this is not a very strong feeling, so I certainly won't
oppose to this new logo just because of my vague comment, and I'll be
happy to see a logo change accepted!

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 13/09/2019 22:03, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:37:26 +0200
> Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> wrote:
> 
>>  > Hadas referred me to this professional looking explanation of why photograph
>>  > is not a good choice for a logo:  
>>
>>  >   https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1270284  
>>
>>  > Hadas also collected a few hundred random logos to demonstrate the point:  
>>
>>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/2616906744_a238697a95_b.jpg  
>>
>>  > SolidRun management agreed to let Hadas design an iconic pictograph version of
>>  > the Buildroot logo. Here is the result.  
>>
>>  > Two colored logo alternatives:  
>>
>>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo.png
>>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo2.png  
>>
>>  > Two monochromatic alternatives:  
>>
>>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
>>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png  
>>
>>  > Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.  
>>
>>  > What do you think?  
>>
>> I also don't really know anything about graphics design, but I like
>> them! Thanks!
>>
>> Anyone disagrees, otherwise please send a patch adding the SVG to the
>> repo (and if you feel up to it, update the website as well).
> 
> First of all, thanks a lot Baruch for proposing those logos, and many
> thanks Hadas for working on them! I understand the idea that our logo
> being a photograph makes it not the best logo, so I like your proposal
> of a pictograph version.
> 
> As I am not a native English speaker and not at all a graphics/design
> expert, it's a bit difficult to put words on how I feel about the logo
> proposal. While I like the idea, I find the design a bit "coarse",
> maybe too "pictographic".

 Do you mean that it seems oversimplified? I would say it is actually still much
more detailed/complex than the typical logo. The PNG is very high resolution, it
becomes better if you zoom it out a lot (like it is intended to be used).

 For me, the logo2.png looks a bit better because it simplified more. I like the
vertical gray line which gives structure to the image. However, it is very much
a large yellow blob. I think this could be improved by lowering the intensity of
the horizontal part of the helmet a little (which also returns a bit of the 3D
effect). We could even try to add a slight gradient to that part (although
possibly a gradient in a logo is not a good idea either).


> I know this feeling is not very helpful as-is
> because it doesn't say what needs to be fixed or improved.
> 
> In any case, this is not a very strong feeling, so I certainly won't
> oppose to this new logo just because of my vague comment, and I'll be
> happy to see a logo change accepted!

 +1 to that!

 Regards,
 Arnout

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Carlos Santos]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:28 PM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13/09/2019 22:03, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:37:26 +0200
> > Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  > Hadas referred me to this professional looking explanation of why photograph
> >>  > is not a good choice for a logo:
> >>
> >>  >   https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1270284
> >>
> >>  > Hadas also collected a few hundred random logos to demonstrate the point:
> >>
> >>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/2616906744_a238697a95_b.jpg
> >>
> >>  > SolidRun management agreed to let Hadas design an iconic pictograph version of
> >>  > the Buildroot logo. Here is the result.
> >>
> >>  > Two colored logo alternatives:
> >>
> >>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo.png
> >>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo2.png
> >>
> >>  > Two monochromatic alternatives:
> >>
> >>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
> >>  >   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png
> >>
> >>  > Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.
> >>
> >>  > What do you think?
> >>
> >> I also don't really know anything about graphics design, but I like
> >> them! Thanks!
> >>
> >> Anyone disagrees, otherwise please send a patch adding the SVG to the
> >> repo (and if you feel up to it, update the website as well).
> >
> > First of all, thanks a lot Baruch for proposing those logos, and many
> > thanks Hadas for working on them! I understand the idea that our logo
> > being a photograph makes it not the best logo, so I like your proposal
> > of a pictograph version.
> >
> > As I am not a native English speaker and not at all a graphics/design
> > expert, it's a bit difficult to put words on how I feel about the logo
> > proposal. While I like the idea, I find the design a bit "coarse",
> > maybe too "pictographic".
>
>  Do you mean that it seems oversimplified? I would say it is actually still much
> more detailed/complex than the typical logo. The PNG is very high resolution, it
> becomes better if you zoom it out a lot (like it is intended to be used).
>
>  For me, the logo2.png looks a bit better because it simplified more. I like the
> vertical gray line which gives structure to the image. However, it is very much
> a large yellow blob. I think this could be improved by lowering the intensity of
> the horizontal part of the helmet a little (which also returns a bit of the 3D
> effect). We could even try to add a slight gradient to that part (although
> possibly a gradient in a logo is not a good idea either).
>
>
> > I know this feeling is not very helpful as-is
> > because it doesn't say what needs to be fixed or improved.
> >
> > In any case, this is not a very strong feeling, so I certainly won't
> > oppose to this new logo just because of my vague comment, and I'll be
> > happy to see a logo change accepted!
>
>  +1 to that!
>
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
>
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

The yellow ones become meaningless spots when reduced to around
100x100 pixels. The yellow color does not help much. :-/

The monochromatic ones still look like a helmet when reduced and
bw_logo seems to have more "volume" and looks like a construction
helmet more than bw_logo2.

-- 
Carlos Santos <unixmania@gmail.com>

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Thomas, Carlos, Arnout, all,

On Fri, Sep 20 2019, Carlos Santos wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:28 PM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>> On 13/09/2019 22:03, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>  Do you mean that it seems oversimplified? I would say it is actually still much
>> more detailed/complex than the typical logo. The PNG is very high resolution, it
>> becomes better if you zoom it out a lot (like it is intended to be used).
>>
>>  For me, the logo2.png looks a bit better because it simplified more. I like the
>> vertical gray line which gives structure to the image. However, it is very much
>> a large yellow blob. I think this could be improved by lowering the intensity of
>> the horizontal part of the helmet a little (which also returns a bit of the 3D
>> effect). We could even try to add a slight gradient to that part (although
>> possibly a gradient in a logo is not a good idea either).
>>
>> > I know this feeling is not very helpful as-is
>> > because it doesn't say what needs to be fixed or improved.
>> >
>> > In any case, this is not a very strong feeling, so I certainly won't
>> > oppose to this new logo just because of my vague comment, and I'll be
>> > happy to see a logo change accepted!
>>
>>  +1 to that!
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Arnout
>
> The yellow ones become meaningless spots when reduced to around
> 100x100 pixels. The yellow color does not help much. :-/
>
> The monochromatic ones still look like a helmet when reduced and
> bw_logo seems to have more "volume" and looks like a construction
> helmet more than bw_logo2.

Thanks for your concrete logo suggestions.

Hadas sent me another set of logo alternatives:

  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/all_buildroot_logos.pdf

What is your favorite option?

Thanks,
baruch

--
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Carlos Santos]

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 8:20 AM Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas, Carlos, Arnout, all,
>
> On Fri, Sep 20 2019, Carlos Santos wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:28 PM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
> >> On 13/09/2019 22:03, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> >>  Do you mean that it seems oversimplified? I would say it is actually still much
> >> more detailed/complex than the typical logo. The PNG is very high resolution, it
> >> becomes better if you zoom it out a lot (like it is intended to be used).
> >>
> >>  For me, the logo2.png looks a bit better because it simplified more. I like the
> >> vertical gray line which gives structure to the image. However, it is very much
> >> a large yellow blob. I think this could be improved by lowering the intensity of
> >> the horizontal part of the helmet a little (which also returns a bit of the 3D
> >> effect). We could even try to add a slight gradient to that part (although
> >> possibly a gradient in a logo is not a good idea either).
> >>
> >> > I know this feeling is not very helpful as-is
> >> > because it doesn't say what needs to be fixed or improved.
> >> >
> >> > In any case, this is not a very strong feeling, so I certainly won't
> >> > oppose to this new logo just because of my vague comment, and I'll be
> >> > happy to see a logo change accepted!
> >>
> >>  +1 to that!
> >>
> >>  Regards,
> >>  Arnout
> >
> > The yellow ones become meaningless spots when reduced to around
> > 100x100 pixels. The yellow color does not help much. :-/
> >
> > The monochromatic ones still look like a helmet when reduced and
> > bw_logo seems to have more "volume" and looks like a construction
> > helmet more than bw_logo2.
>
> Thanks for your concrete logo suggestions.
>
> Hadas sent me another set of logo alternatives:
>
>   http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/all_buildroot_logos.pdf
>
> What is your favorite option?
>
> Thanks,
> baruch

Based on the rigorous criterion of personal taste I'd choose #1 but
with the darker color used in #3.

-- 
Carlos Santos <unixmania@gmail.com>

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Jonathan Ben Avraham]

Hi Baruch,
See inlines below.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Baruch Siach wrote:

> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:15:03 +0300
> From: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>
> To: buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
> Cc: Hadas Cohen <hadas.cohen@solid-run.com>
> Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph
> 
> Hi Buildroot developers,
>
> We have a nice recognizable logo that illustrates what Buildroot is
> about. Being far from expert (or even amateur) in graphic design, I find it
> perfect. But when Hadas Cohen, SolidRun's graphic designer, considered using
> the Buildroot logo in a brochure, she noticed a problem. It turns out that a
> realistic picture is no go for logo design. As a result she could not use the
> logo as is, because it looks markedly different than other logos in the
> brochure.
>
> Hadas referred me to this professional looking explanation of why photograph
> is not a good choice for a logo:
>
>  https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1270284
>
> Hadas also collected a few hundred random logos to demonstrate the point:
>
>  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/2616906744_a238697a95_b.jpg
>
> SolidRun management agreed to let Hadas design an iconic pictograph version of
> the Buildroot logo. Here is the result.
>
> Two colored logo alternatives:
>
>  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo.png
>  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/colored_logo2.png

This is a clearcut trademark conflict with MontaVista Hard Hat Linux, 
https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/personal-computers/17/307/1222. Also 
google "hardhat linux logo", and asking for trouble, as is the yellow hardhat 
currently displayed on the Buildroot site.

Whatever logo we choose, before investing in graphics we need to do a careful 
trademark search. I suggest that you ask Thomas about the possible adverse 
results of trademark conflicts. You really need to be careful.

It is clear that we also need trademark protection for whatever logo is chosen. 
This is not cheap.

  - yba


> Two monochromatic alternatives:
>
>  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
>  http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png
>
> Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.
>
> What do you think?
>
> baruch
>
> --
>     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
> =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
>   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>

-- 
  9590 8E58 D30D 1660 C349  673D B205 4FC4 B8F5 B7F9  ~. .~  Tk Open Systems
=}-------- Jonathan Ben-Avraham ("yba") ----------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
mailto:yba at tkos.co.il tel:+972.52.486.3386 http://tkos.co.il skype:benavrhm

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 22/09/2019 07:53, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
[snip]
> This is a clearcut trademark conflict with MontaVista Hard Hat Linux,
> https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/personal-computers/17/307/1222. Also
> google "hardhat linux logo", and asking for trouble, as is the yellow hardhat
> currently displayed on the Buildroot site.

 First of all, if there is a trademark issue, this new logo doesn't change that
because we've already been using the hardhat logo for 10 years or so.

 Second, does MontaVista really have a trademark here? I used the USPTO search
engine to find "hard hat linux" and turned up nothing. I didn't search for the
logo itself because that's more difficult to do, but it would be surprising if
they held a trademark on the logo but not the name.


> Whatever logo we choose, before investing in graphics we need to do a careful
> trademark search. I suggest that you ask Thomas about the possible adverse
> results of trademark conflicts. You really need to be careful.

 I disagree. If we have to change our logo, so be it. And it's hard for anyone
to sue for damages because there's nobody to sue or no money to be gained from it.

> It is clear that we also need trademark protection for whatever logo is chosen.

 I disagree with this as well. If someone else wants to use the same logo, I
don't think we have a problem with that.


> This is not cheap.

 That I agree with :-)

 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
> ?- yba
> 
> 
>> Two monochromatic alternatives:
>>
>> ?http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
>> ?http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png
>>
>> Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> baruch
>>
>> -- 
>> ??? http://baruch.siach.name/blog/????????????????? ~. .~?? Tk Open Systems
>> =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
>> ? - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
>> _______________________________________________
>> buildroot mailing list
>> buildroot at busybox.net
>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>>
> 

[Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph

[Jonathan Ben Avraham]

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 16:40:12 +0200
> From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
> To: Jonathan Ben Avraham <yba@tkos.co.il>, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>
> Cc: Hadas Cohen <hadas.cohen@solid-run.com>,
>     buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Buildroot Logo Pictograph
> 
> On 22/09/2019 07:53, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
> [snip]
>> This is a clearcut trademark conflict with MontaVista Hard Hat Linux,
>> https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/personal-computers/17/307/1222. Also
>> google "hardhat linux logo", and asking for trouble, as is the yellow hardhat
>> currently displayed on the Buildroot site.
>
> First of all, if there is a trademark issue, this new logo doesn't change that
> because we've already been using the hardhat logo for 10 years or so.

A good case can be made that the Buildroot Association has never used the yellow 
hardhat in the sense of a trademark.

In order to be considered a trademark there are specific legal tests that must 
be passed. Merely *decorating* a web site with an image does not in itself 
confer any rights to use that image in the sense of a trademark. The fact that 
this decoration has been used for many years does not constitute an assertion of 
title to trademark, nor does it protect the Association from legal claims of 
dilution of brand by any party who might in the future elect to register the 
yellow hardhat as a trademark of some software business.

AFAIK the Buildroot Association has never even made a claim or an assertion that 
the yellow hardhat is a symbol of either the Buildroot software or of the 
Buildroot Association. Such assertion and claim is an important part of the 
legal test for trademark use. Before investing any more time in the image and 
its use, I advise the association to at least publish a notice that the yellow 
hardhat in some specific way is considered to be a symbol of the Buildroot 
software.

> Second, does MontaVista really have a trademark here? I used the USPTO search
> engine to find "hard hat linux" and turned up nothing. I didn't search for the
> logo itself because that's more difficult to do, but it would be surprising if
> they held a trademark on the logo but not the name.

Either MontaVista or some other company could register the yellow hardhat as a 
trademark of some Open Source or Linux-related software product or company and 
sue the Buildroot Association. My advice is to forestall this by at least making 
a public claim that the yellow hardhat is a symbol of the Buildroot software or 
of the Buildroot Association.

>
>> Whatever logo we choose, before investing in graphics we need to do a careful
>> trademark search. I suggest that you ask Thomas about the possible adverse
>> results of trademark conflicts. You really need to be careful.
>
> I disagree. If we have to change our logo, so be it. And it's hard for anyone
> to sue for damages because there's nobody to sue or no money to be gained from it.

When you have to change the logo because you haven't taken steps to protect it, 
you are showing disrespect to the volunteers who worked to create and promote 
the logo, and then worked again to replace it.

Furthermore, when you have to change the logo because you were careless about 
protecting it, you bring disrepute to the Association.

It is not hard for anyone to sue. There are thousands of trolls who sue 
beneficiaries of unclaimed insurance pay-outs for bringing the pay-outs to their 
attention, patent and trademark trolls. These people think nothing of filing
claims. If one claim in ten pays out then their business is worthwhile. I myself 
have been sued by one such troll. I won the case, but it cost money. You don't' 
want to the there.

>> It is clear that we also need trademark protection for whatever logo is chosen.
>
> I disagree with this as well. If someone else wants to use the same logo, I
> don't think we have a problem with that.

We do have a problem. If a company decides tomorrow that the yellow hardhat is 
available for use as a trademark, registers it and aggressively defends it, then 
we will have to stop using it because the Association does not have the 
resources to defend a claim it has never made.

>
>> This is not cheap.

But it is also not that expensive to get minimal legal advice on how to protect 
a logo or symbol.

  - yba


> That I agree with :-)
>
> Regards,
> Arnout
>
>>
>> ?- yba
>>
>>
>>> Two monochromatic alternatives:
>>>
>>> ?http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo.png
>>> ?http://tinkie.tkos.co.il/buildroot-logo/bw_logo2.png
>>>
>>> Hadas can provide the vectorized SVG and PDF sources of these raster images.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> baruch
>>>
>>> --
>>> ??? http://baruch.siach.name/blog/????????????????? ~. .~?? Tk Open Systems
>>> =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
>>> ? - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> buildroot mailing list
>>> buildroot at busybox.net
>>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>>>
>>
>

-- 
  9590 8E58 D30D 1660 C349  673D B205 4FC4 B8F5 B7F9  ~. .~  Tk Open Systems
=}-------- Jonathan Ben-Avraham ("yba") ----------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
mailto:yba at tkos.co.il tel:+972.52.486.3386 http://tkos.co.il skype:benavrhm