Re: New Logo Discussion

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-18 22:18:14

On 7/18/24 19:51, Vinnie Falco wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:21 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto: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.

Not really separate. The terms of use of the new logo directly affect
its acceptance.

> 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.

Even if I trust in your good intentions, you are not the owner of the
logo and not the one who is to be asked whether one can use it. It is
The C++ Alliance. While you currently may have the leverage to enforce
your good intentions, should the need for such enforcement appear,
unfortunately this may not always be the case.

So, sentiments aside, we are discussing a legal document that may be
used against your current statement, and in a way I don't think should
be possible. Specifically, it may prevent redistribution of modified
copies of 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:

Social stuff is not my concern.

> 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.

I don't disagree with the need for protection, but I don't agree that
such protection should violate BSL. The license is also part of the
brand, a much more important part than the logo, IMO.

> 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.

Each Boost release package contains the Boost logo, it's the boost.png
in the root directory. That file is being referenced by every library
docs that are packaged in the archive. Removing those references would
be a very non-trivial task, and it becomes harder with every new
documentation page. Alternatively, one could replace the image itself,
but that would require one designing a replacement image.

None of that should be required. I'm feeling strongly about it. Either
the logo's terms of use should allow Boost usage to the full extent of
BSL, including redistribution of derivative works, or the logo should
not be part of Boost distribution (which would be rather awkward).

Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with
the current one.

> 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.

Again, that is an additional restriction compared to BSL. I do not
accept that. By this I mean, as a Boost library maintainer, I would have
to remove the references to your new logo from my libraries to keep them
under BSL. As a Boost user, I would have to reconsider how I'm consuming
and packaging Boost. Stopping using official Boost releases with the
logo would be one of the options. Needless to say, I'd be very unhappy,
whichever hat I wear.