unity-design team mailing list archive

[Mark Shuttleworth <mark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

 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