[Its.an.education.project] Logo proposal

[Eben Eliason]

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> On 09.05.2008, at 10:51, Seth Woodworth wrote:
>>
>>> Does Sugar-labs really want to keep the OLPC XO symbol?
>>>
>>> Actually, come to think of it, it's more of a sugar logo than an OLPC
>>> logo.
>>
>> Well, the XO icon and name is intrinsically linked to the OLPC hardware.
>> OTOH it is a generic icon for kids. Unless someone has a *really* good idea
>> I'd say go with the XO icon, for now anyways.
>
> The XO icon works quite well I think so it would be nice to be able to keep
> it. But it is true that it is quite bound to the OLPC hardware. Some
> possible vendors might even refuse to use sugar because of that or wanted to
> have their own logo inserted. Maybe if the gen2 does not brand the xo-logo
> on the hardware the use of the xo logo would work better.

In truth, the XO logo was the core of Sugar and entirely developed in
reference to software, and only later became stamped onto the hardware
itself.  Initially, the design intent was to reflect the green bumpers
of the laptop with the stroke of the XO figure, and beyond that we
didn't expect the physical hardware to have any specific Sugar
references.  It still seems to me that the XO logo really should be
the face of Sugar.

> Not even sure if the logo is not trademarked anyway.

It is trademarked, but I /believe/ only in the context of computer
hardware, which may mean we can still use it.  Beyond that, there is
still the possibility that OLPC can do the right thing and open it up
to us anyway by adjusting the trademark.  In reality, there are 3
versions of the XO.  The first is the stroked version found in the
software.  The second is the non-stroked version found in the OLPC
logo, and the third is the one found on the XO hardware (which has
rounded inner corners for some reason).  The "Sugar" XO, oddly, is the
trademarked one, but again, perhaps that's the wrong thing.

- Eben