Re: Git Branding Overview, Re: Git.or.cz Experimental Design

> Martin Langhoff venit, vidit, dixit 20.07.2008 23:50:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 11:11:02PM -0400, David Baldwin wrote:
> > > > http://baldwindev.com/git.or.cz/
> > > I'm not sure if this is really an improvement on the current state,
> > > but then again, the current state pretty much matches my idea and maybe
> > > others will agree that your proposal is better. Thus, it's better to
> > > show this to the Git community at large. :-)
> > 
> > FWIW, I like it. I like both the better font and whitespace layout and
> > the 3-color-spot-merge-to-white. As Petr says, we have had the
> > (apologies, but to me) ugly logo for a while, so it is widely used,
> > and perhaps it has even grown on people.
> > 
> > BazaarNG managed to grab the best concept logo of the lot, IMHO, with
> > the 'merge' roadsign.
> > 
> > > If you think you have a cooler logo, that's fine too, but then it's
> > > again better to present it explicitly, I believe.
> > 
> > Can we separate the 2 things? The better fonts and layout look like a win to
> > me.
> > 
> > WRT the logo, the current one is not a particularly strong image, and
> > we haven't spent millions in plastering it over magazines or anything.
> > So a good new logo would be something to take on.
> 
> I like that new logo (plusminus G), too, it's very descriptive. I just want to
> raise one question which I can't answer myself:
> 
> Are there any potential issues with the Helvetica license?
> 
> In any case it may be safer do redo it with a GPL sans serif font. If one
> wants to keep the association of the shape of "G" with a circular arrow then
> FreeSans and Nimbus Sans L seem to be the only options.
> 
> Alternatively, it may be easier to redo it in plain PS. I'll attach 2 KISS
> variants. 1.5k for the eps, 3 colors only.