Talk:Manchester/Logo Competition
From LibrePlanet
Contents |
Licence requirement
I don’t think entries should be restricted to CCzero. Any licence providing the freedoms necessary for a free work should be allowed. This would include, but is not limited to, works dedicated to the public domain and those licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share‐Alike (dependent on attribution requirements set by the author).
I can see where there may be problems with other licences such as the GFDL and GPL which require distribution with a copy of the licence or reference to it without allowing the author to specify the necessity or allowing for referencing reasonable to the medium in which it is used. For example, it is difficult (but not impossible) to indicate any attribution and licence for small items such as stickers and badges, and may not even be practical on business cards (e.g. the mini Moo cards). It may need some looking into to check that the licence would be compatible with a waiver.
Suggestions for other free artwork licences are welcome.
—sward 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with your arguments. It's just the lack of knowing what other licenses are available and not having the time to research it. CC-SA seems reasonable, as does CC-BY-SA if someone can come up with sensible attribution requirements that are in accordance with the license text). —LucyB 22:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- How about suggesting people “freely license [this may have to be clarified] their logo, and bear in mind the following: We will want to use the logo in situations where attribution and indication of the licence may be difficult or impractical. [Maybe give examples? Mention that we’ll attribute on our web site, and in media where there is ample space such as books, computer storage devices, …]. Please bear this in mind when choosing a licence and specifying attribution requirements. We suggest the following licences:
- Creative Commons CC0
- Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike, with minimal attribution”
- Note that I don’t specify CC-SA as a suggestion since this is not in the current set of licences maintained by CC.—sward 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just another thought: Don’t imply that a licence has to be chosen outright, but make sure we get across what we’ll want to be able to do with it, and that any attribution/licence indication may not always be doable. We can discuss the finer details with winning entrants when we get there.—sward 22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- A problem I can see with this approach is an entrant using previous entries may end up producing entries that we can’t use because the author of the originals doesn’t agree.—sward 22:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Graphics format
SVG technically allows embedding of bitmaps. This might want to be clarified as “vector graphics only”. If allowances may be made for bitmaps, I would more so make allowances for other vector formats such as EPS, CGM, Dia and OpenDocument Graphics.—sward 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Colours
An additional requirement on the “too many colours” theme should be that it also looks good (preserves the branding requirements on theme, etc) in monochrome.—sward 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
File size
Does the 6MB limit refer to any practical limit, or is it just an arbitrary limit?—sward 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's totally arbitrary. I wanted to express that the files shouldn't be too big, since people will be viewing them all together on one wiki page and also not exceed gmail's 20MB attachment limit.
—LucyB 22:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the wiki has a maximum file size limit of 2MB. I've updated the text to reflect this. —LucyB 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
