New logo

[C. Boemann]

On Friday 04 November 2011 00:14:30 Markus Slopianka wrote:
> On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 22:50:58 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > LGPL is really a bad idea for artwork...
> 
> No, it's not. The Oxygen team isn't stupid. They chose LGPL for a reason.
Thank you for your confidence, but no we didn't have a real reason to choose 
LGPL. We chose it because we were in a hurry and had to select something and 
LGPL fitted the intention of how we wanted to license it.

And yes I was a member of Oxygen at the time and part of the inner discussions 
about the licensing
> 
> > I would suggest CC-BY-SA, which is
> > basically like LGPL but for artwork:
> > 
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> 
> I repeat myself but I already suggested LGPL/CC dual licensing.
> LGPL is more handy for embedding artwork in GPLed apps while CC is better
> for websites and alike.
Yes I think that is the appropriate way, and what we did in Oxygen too

There is however still the matter of trademark i think we should settle at the 
sprint before we license the logo.