On 20/08/10 18:54, Jake Tolbert wrote: > This is an interesting question that I'd like some perspective on (as > a bit of an outsider to Canonical, but part of the FLOSS community): > where does Canonical a/o Ubuntu's responsibility to maintain the > Ubuntu brand end? > > As a marketer in a rather traditional market, I'm conditioned to think > that I need to preserve my brand wherever possible, to make sure > everything looks consistent in every medium. > > At the same time, it's foolish, and I think, counter to FLOSS > ideology, to clamp down on this sort of 'fan art', to categorize it > broadly. So how does a company deeply devoted to open source ideology > interact with fan art? Canonical owns the brand / trademark, but we license it very freely to the Ubuntu community. Folks who want to set something up that claims to be Ubuntu, or representing Ubuntu, just send mail to trademarks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and as long as the use falls within the trademark policy, it gets ack'd and approved. Your point is exactly right: Ubuntu is bigger than Canonical's contributions could ever make it, it's the sum of aspirations, hope, dreams and effort from a very large community, and that community needs to be able to express itself and speak for Ubuntu. In the design guidelines, we have a framework for styling that includes an axis from "Canonical <-> Community". When designing materials, you ask the question "am I speaking for a Canonical service or offering, or from a Canonical perspective, or from a community perspective, or somwehre in between". Then, based on the position on that axis, we provide guidance as to the balance of colour in the materials (in short, more Canonical == more aubergine, more Community == more orange). We're breaking quite a bit of new ground, I think, in formalising the voice of a broader community in the brand. Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature