Difference between revisions of "Talk:Design Team/Logo Ideas"
(→Sugar CRM: new section) |
|||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I like it too (as well the colour blue as new maincolour) ... --[[User:Helga|Helga]] 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC) | I like it too (as well the colour blue as new maincolour) ... --[[User:Helga|Helga]] 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Sugar CRM == | ||
+ | |||
+ | I've always thought the Sugar was an unfortunate collision in open-source namespace with the [http://www.sugarforge.org/ Sugar CRM], but there is not much you can do about that now. However, you should be careful to avoid mark confusion. Sugar CRM does have [http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/open-source/trademark-information.html trademarks] that they can rightfully defend, including the word mark "Sugar" -- when used in the context of a Sales, Marketing or Customer Service business software application and [http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/images/tm_images/SugarLabs.png this registered mark] (specific to the font, etc.) on a stylized "SugarLabs" logo as well as [http://www.sugarcrm.com//crm/images/tm_images/sugarcrm_tm.png this registered mark] with a cube. I'm not saying anything currently proposed necessarily interferes with their marks (I'm not a copyright lawyer), but you should be aware of their marks so as to avoid confusion, and you don't want to mess with nice guys who make a good CRM and give it away anyway. [[User:Cjl|Cjl]] 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:30, 13 May 2008
We shouldn't change the Sugar icon. It is the central metaphor for the child on the XO and it works well w/ the other icons in the mesh view. I have changed the main XO icon on my XO to the OLE Nepal logo and then changed it back because it made the mesh view absolutely confusing. BryanWB 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right. I think that, regardless of what we chose as a logo for Sugar as an OS, it's critical to retain the XO representation for the people within the UI, at least by default. -Eben
Eben: I like your logo idea. It's simple and neutral and plays well with the sugar look and feel. I think that we could go with blue for the main color. A weakness of that design could be that it looks like s ugar, as if "ugar" was a word in itself. Can you also make a version with the words "sugar labs" in it? --Simon 13:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel like playing into the simple stroke/fill visual style is a good way to go, since that in itself is part of Sugar's identity. I agree with your comment regarding the kerning between the 's' and the 'ugar', but played with a number of possibilities and didn't find any I liked better. Feel free to glance at my sketches for insight into my process, and potentially food for further discussion. I feel that the "sugar cube" logo needs the 's' when it's used alone, but perhaps we could pull the 's' out of the cube for the logotype version. Also, I was aiming to find an identity of Sugar itself; do we need a "Sugar Labs" logo independent of that? Could we license the Sugar logo under CC and simply use a logotype with "labs" appended, perhaps in a lighter gray? -Eben
- "Labs" could just be a little word beneath "sugar". As for the kerning problem, I don't know yet how to best solve that. Do you mind putting the source file (SVG?, AI?, EPS?) online, so I can play with it a bit? --Simon 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just a thought: Why not use just the symbol with the s in it and typeset ”sugar“ and/or „sugarlabs“ additional - like f.e. the Superman-logo, it contains only an S, without uperman afterwards ... --Helga 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it too (as well the colour blue as new maincolour) ... --Helga 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sugar CRM
I've always thought the Sugar was an unfortunate collision in open-source namespace with the Sugar CRM, but there is not much you can do about that now. However, you should be careful to avoid mark confusion. Sugar CRM does have trademarks that they can rightfully defend, including the word mark "Sugar" -- when used in the context of a Sales, Marketing or Customer Service business software application and this registered mark (specific to the font, etc.) on a stylized "SugarLabs" logo as well as this registered mark with a cube. I'm not saying anything currently proposed necessarily interferes with their marks (I'm not a copyright lawyer), but you should be aware of their marks so as to avoid confusion, and you don't want to mess with nice guys who make a good CRM and give it away anyway. Cjl 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)