On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:21 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> 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. 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. 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: https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1779944878446670208 https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1768833941341896756 https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1755277784824344943 Correspondingly, posts which are not official communications do not bear a watermark: https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1755623315954176410 https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1748504615371334006 https://x.com/Boost_Libraries/status/1716891934986530946 You may note that the official communications which bear a watermark, also have associated artwork which is drawn by hand in a particular style. This is a component of the visual language which I am proposing as part of Boost's brand. When developing the website I noticed very quickly that AI-generated artwork, stock photos, or real photos of people drew many negative impressions from people that we asked (and personally I thought they looked bad). On the other hand, we have gotten surprisingly positive feedback with respect to the character illustrations from Bob Ostrom (our contract artist). I was hesitant that cartoon animals could be viable for a very technical project but hey, it works! It stimulates curiosity for everyone that sees it. It also seems to play to a more diverse audience. The project has never officially defined Boost's values, although the Foundation alludes to some of them in its mission statement. I think a reasonable rough draft of Boost's values are as follows (feel free to modify): 1. C++ Leadership 2. Robust Discussion 3. Formal Review Process 4. Boost Software License 5. Technical Excellence 6. Quality Control 7. Compatibility 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. 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. I'm not exactly sure if the Logo Usage Policy achieves this. It probably doesn't, as the policy has never been "tested" and certainly contains "bugs." With your help and support I am certain that we can figure out a good solution. 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. Thanks