Demon license?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Josh Ockert [mailto:torstenvl at gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:54 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey; Ray Jenson; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org;
>taob at risc.org
>Subject: Re: Demon license?
>
>
>This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to point out that I'm not the
>one raising the issue.
>
>There have been numerous attempts on -questions to paint the advocates
>of a new logo as anti-Beastie. Specifically, Ted, you claim that "The
>agitators in the FreeBSD project that want to jettison it are falling
>all over themselves to carefully explain how that ... really isn't so
>strongly identified with FreeBSD." There are no plans to jettison
>Beastie, and it has never been claimed that he's not associated with
>FreeBSD. Your making this statement is irresponsible behavior and I
>for one am going to block the address of anyone who continues on in
>this manner.
>

Go ahead.  Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to
consider any position different than your own.  I am at least
willing to continue to discuss it.

Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when
people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked
a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that
his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word.

If you "block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner"
you simply prove my point for me - that the proponents of this
anti-Beastie
crusade only care what they want, not what anyone else wants.

>The logo contest website very specifically says that Beastie will
>still be the mascot. From this I conclude one of: a) You have not read
>the website and have no idea what you're talking about. b) Are
>intentionally trying to start arguments (we call this trolling). c)
>Don't know that a mascot is a personified figure associated with
>something.
>

This "mascot" argument has been brought up before and disproved
before.  Beastie has been treated as the Project's logo since FreeBSD 1.1
He has been referred to as a mascot - irregularly - but his image has
been used as the defacto logo image for FreeBSD.

Perhaps nobody that YOU might consider authoratative has ever made a
blanket statement that "Beastie's image is the official FreeBSD Project's
Logo" however that is nothing more than a semantic argument.  His
image has been USED as the logo on just about every CDROM pressing
that Walnut Creek ever sold, and in numerous other websites and
on the FreeBSD Project's website.  And I am not talking about the full
color images on the front of the CD jewel cases, I'm talking about the
minature Beastie logo image on the back.  Face the fact, Beastie is the
current logo.

Now, you may argue that it is time for the FreeBSD Project to change
it's logo - although I have yet to see a logical reason for this -
and I think I and the userbase would have some respect for this
argument if you could use a logical proof.  But your argument that
he never was the logo to begin with is nothing more than an attempt
to side-step the discussion of why do we need to change the logo now.

In short, you know your arguments for making a logo change won't hold
water so you would rather not have to make them - so your going to
try to argue that you don't have to make them "since he was never
the logo to begin with"

This is a cowards argument and not one that will generate any respect
among the userbase.

And trying to argue that there's room for both a logo and a mascot
is purely an argument of appeasement.  There can only be one recognizable
imagery for The FreeBSD Project, just as for ANY product.  And the
appeasement argument also totally ignores that it is the userbase's
choice of what imagery they recognize as being associated with FreeBSD
that is going to win.  If the userbase turns it's back on the "new logo"
that this ill-advised contest comes up with, then your going to be
stuck with Beastie continuing to be used and recognized as the 'real'
logo.

The situation would be analogous to if one day Microsoft decided they
wanted to stop using the Windows logo and the word "Windows" to refer
to their product line.  It wouldn't work because the Windows userbase
would simply ignore any alternative attempt at a logo than the flying
Window.

>Furthermore, you and some of those sharing your viewpoints have tried
>to paint those wishing for a different logo as in the extreme
>minority.

They are.

>Personally, I think it's a good idea to create for ourselves
>something that can contribute to a public face less open to
>misinterpretation while still safeguarding part of the community
>culture. I haven't spoken up on it so far because I saw no need to. I
>submit that it's entirely possible that there are many like me. Being
>more vocal does not make you the majority.
>

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.  The FreeBSD Project isn't just
composed of the core members and the software.  It encompasses
that as well as the entire userbase.  If you want the userbase to
come round to your point of view on this logo thing, then you need
to handle the userbase with respect.

So far the userbase has NOT been asked to vote on this topic.
Instead what has happened is a few core members who feel strongly
about this have setup this contest.  You may in fact go so far as
to pick the top 10 logo images and submit that to a vote - but
if the Beastie image isn't a choice in that vote, then such a vote
is no better than an old Communist Russia election where you
vote yes or no on a predetermined candidate.

Failing to ask the userbase if we even need to do this is not
being respectful.  And many of the arguments that you are
putting forth that tie into the religious aspect are completely
repugnant.

Greg Lehey said:

"I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and
associated it with FreeBSD."

Re-read this please.  "DEVIL" image?  What is that?  Devil in
this context is a religious term.  So what Greg is really saying
here is that "we" would object if someone drew a religious image
and associated it with FreeBSD"

YET the anti-Beastie/Pro non-Beastie-logo camp is saying that
the current Beastie image IS A RELIGIOUS IMAGE which is why it
is being rejected by some idiots out there, which is why we need
this new non-religious logo you want.  That is the gist of your
argument.  It is enough to make a lot of the userbase throw up.

>Lastly, I would think that those in "The Project" are very able to
>make decisions like this. It is a meritocracy. Having a contest open
>to the public gathers opinions from the community. I wouldn't call
>that fascist, yet you seem to try to imply that it is.
>

If the contest had no reward other than the fun of seeing your
name in lights, then I would agree with this.  But the contest has
a specific monetary reward.  Thus it does not gather opinions from
the community - it gathers submittals from everyone wanting $500.
There's lots of people out there who will happily put aside their
personal honor and opinions for $500 - we have a lot of them running
the government right now.  You have no way of knowing how many
in the contest are in this group.

>In short, take a chill pill.
>

That is pretty much what the anti-Beastie people always end up
saying.  Well if this is so unimportant why are you paying for
artwork?

In short, so far you have not put forth one coherent argument
in favor of this logo change.  Even others of the anti-Beastie
movement have put forth more in support of a logo change than
you have here.

>As to the subject of copyright infringement, allowing other
>Beastie-like images to be associated with FreeBSD is not copyright
>infringement. Gentoo's penguin is not copyright infringement. Stylized
>logos that are merely similar do not infringe on eachother. That's
>like suggesting that a professional photographer at a wedding owns all
>amateur wedding photos taken by friends and family attending the
>event. It is not a subject that is copyrighted, or nobody would be
>able to paint flowers anymore. It is the image itself. Any work that
>is arrived at independently cannot possibly infringe on another's
>copyright. So a redrawing of a daemon that is not a copy of Kirk's is
>completely legal. (IANAL.. yet. Give me a couple more years and the
>MBE though and that'll change).
>

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying earlier.  Your just restating my
point to Greg.

Ted