Re: New Logo Discussion

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-18 16:51:51

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:21 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I see this paragraph as problematic:
> ...
> If I'm reading this correctly, it says that only the original product
> (e.g. Boost distribution) is allowed to bear the "B" logo. If one makes
> a change to the Boost distribution, he is no longer allowed to
> redistribute the modified version without also removing the logo or
> obtaining a written permission from The C++ Alliance.
> ...
> I think, this violates BSL and I find this unacceptable.
>

This is a separate conversation from the choice of logo image, and one
worth having.

First, please assume that I am proposing these terms in good faith. As an
author of open-source libraries, I want my offerings to have as much
distribution as possible. That is why I prefer the BSL to the MIT License,
as the BSL is more permissive with respect to compiled binaries. I don't
want to do anything that hinders the distribution of my libraries, or
anyone's libraries, especially those in Boost.

I believe investments in a fresh image mark for Boost have merit. I'd like
to associate the new Boost logo with official communications or work
outputs of the project. For example, posts to X which are official
communications are watermarked with the stylized B:

https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1779944878446670208
https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1768833941341896756
https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1755277784824344943

Correspondingly, posts which are not official communications do not bear a
watermark:

https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1755623315954176410
https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1748504615371334006
https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1716891934986530946

You may note that the official communications which bear a watermark, also
have associated artwork which is drawn by hand in a particular style. This
is a component of the visual language which I am proposing as part of
Boost's brand. When developing the website I noticed very quickly that
AI-generated artwork, stock photos, or real photos of people drew many
negative impressions from people that we asked (and personally I thought
they looked bad). On the other hand, we have gotten surprisingly positive
feedback with respect to the character illustrations from Bob Ostrom (our
contract artist). I was hesitant that cartoon animals could be viable for a
very technical project but hey, it works! It stimulates curiosity for
everyone that sees it. It also seems to play to a more diverse audience.

The project has never officially defined Boost's values, although the
Foundation alludes to some of them in its mission statement. I think a
reasonable rough draft of Boost's values are as follows (feel free to
modify):

1. C++ Leadership
2. Robust Discussion
3. Formal Review Process
4. Boost Software License
5. Technical Excellence
6. Quality Control
7. Compatibility

A consequence of building up the value of a brand, is that other people
will want to use its trade dress to enhance their own products. If Boost
accepts this new logo, the Alliance will move forward with its plans to
create a visual design guide and deploy it consistently. We will exhibit
the logo at conferences in a manner that is consistent with promoting
Boost's values. It will be displayed in other places which are consistent
with the project. Once we do this, the new logo will become a target for
usage which is not aligned with Boost. People only steal that which has
value. Hence the need for protection.

Now we come to the release package. In my opinion, the thrice-annual Boost
release is an official communication from the project. It is the result of
a formally designed process which has a release manager and strict rules to
ensure quality. The release archive is identified by its cryptographic hash
signature. Ideally, releases which come from this official process bear the
new Boost logo. While releases that come from elsewhere, whose
cryptographic digest is not identical, do not. At some level this is a moot
point, as a zip file does not have a logo.

I'm not exactly sure if the Logo Usage Policy achieves this. It probably
doesn't, as the policy has never been "tested" and certainly contains
"bugs." With your help and support I am certain that we can figure out a
good solution.

In my opinion, official releases are special, compared to packages built by
other individuals outside of Boost's formal process. Anyone can package the
sources, documentation, and/or compiled binaries as they like. And I'd like
to ensure that only packages produced by Boost's formal release process
bear its trade dress.

Thanks