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

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You could have spared yourself the trouble: