Selecting a Plasma logo

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On 02.08.2016 16:31, Ken Vermette wrote:
> I don't mean to be "that guy", but he submitted his logo under the LGPLv3, 
> signalling that everyone has the right to modify his work. I'm not saying this 
> because I have a horse in this race, I'm saying it because, frankly, the idea 
> that we "aren't allowed" to collaborate and remix artwork in an open-source 
> project is extremely distasteful to our core values... The idea that we would 
> be beholden to a single author for every tweak is ridiculous.

You are right that technically there is no obligation at all to ask any contest 
participant for permission to reuse their work since LGPLv3 was explicitly 
stated as requirement for participation.
>
> Even then, the "rule" in the original thread causing this mess wasn't even 
> about permission - it was about "originality". If we blindly followed the rule 
> to the letter no collaborative or derivative effort by anyone is allowed - 
> which is Monty Python levels of ridiculous.
>
> With all due respect to Anditosan, I think he created a great starting point, 
> but the idea that he would stint not just my remix but the work of others is 
> disappointing - as a member of the VDG I would have hoped he would have 
> actively encouraged collaboration and community values... Barring that, 
> however, I don't believe we aren't beholden to his will on this, by posting 
> his work in that thread he submitted it for modification and re-use under a 
> permissive licence. No matter if the logo derived from his work, my work, or 
> anyone else's we should simply choose the best logo instead of settling 
> because someone in the chain doesn't want their work touched.
>

So, the VDG has stated their opinion on the proposals, now we should let the 
Plasma team decide which one to take, regardless of who gave or did not give 
permission for what (as Ken is right, that does not actually matter).

The VDG will accept whatever the Plasma team chooses.

Cheers,
Thomas