Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
After many discussions on the thread "Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation" that many will have tired of, a few with more stamina have agreed the following proposal for wider agreement. Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo. =============================== There are many projects springing up, often with smart documentation using the Boost Logo, and there are many more products, for sale and for free, that use Boost libraries. Many are concerned at the 'Dilution of the Brand Identity': so we propose two new variant logos: 1 For projects that are written with Boost 'in mind', perhaps for submission, but are *not yet reviewed and accepted*. "For use with" - logo for projects having some association with Boost, but are *not 'official'*. (Many like red text to signal strongly that this is NOT (perhaps yet) a Boost approved library). 2 For projects that *use* Boost, and would like to acknowledge this - with thanks: "Powered by" - logo for all projects *using* Boost. (in addition to the 'Using Boost' listing on the website) To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan). (These logos will be available in bitmap, png and svg formats ready to be used in html and pdf docs). Paul PS Some were also in favour of a "Proposed for Boost" logo to be used only *for libraries in the review queue*, but not yet in a final release. Others felt this was unnecessary. So unless there is strong support for this, it does not form part of this proposal. --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan).
I like the "powered by" logos very much, the others I'm not so sure of. Personally I think proposed/sandbox libraries could use the "powered by" logo too? Just my 2c, John.
John Maddock wrote:
To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan).
I like the "powered by" logos very much,
Yes, very good idea indeed. I Have a list of at least a few libraries that will hang it on their websites. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:30:17 -0000, "John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan).
Nice work. Let's say I want to advertise the usage of Boost in my products. What's the official policy? -- EA
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
Nice work. Let's say I want to advertise the usage of Boost in my products. What's the official policy?
There isn't one yet. You can help to establish it if we choose to adopt the new logo. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:54:48 -0500, "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
Nice work. Let's say I want to advertise the usage of Boost in my products. What's the official policy?
There isn't one yet. You can help to establish it if we choose to adopt the new logo.
Well. You just want to have some sort of approval process. I guess you just don't want the "powered by boost" logo floating around and being pasted on just any software. That's branding. I'm not sure how I can help you with it, but if you think I can just tell me how... -- EA
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:54:48 -0500, "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
Nice work. Let's say I want to advertise the usage of Boost in my products. What's the official policy? There isn't one yet. You can help to establish it if we choose to adopt the new logo.
Well. You just want to have some sort of approval process. I guess you just don't want the "powered by boost" logo floating around and being pasted on just any software. That's branding.
Use of a logo graphics is use of an intellectual property. It usually is licensed, permission granted or not, etc. True. However, I'm not sure what would approval process mean for projects that use Boost libraries, literally, do #include <boost/....hpp> in their sources and want to put "Powered By Boost" logo on their websites IMHO, permission to use this logo should be granted in that cases without restrictions. Otherwise, it wouldn't be different from expecting projects asking for permission if they can write Project X uses Boost" on their website. Name "Boost" belongs to the very same matter of branding as logo. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Hi, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
However, I'm not sure what would approval process mean for projects that use Boost libraries, literally, do #include <boost/....hpp> in their sources and want to put "Powered By Boost" logo on their websites IMHO, permission to use this logo should be granted in that cases without restrictions.
In which case the whole concept will diffuse as it will be no different than "Powered by STL" or "Powered by IOStreams". And, to be frank, as long as Boost libraries are *libraries* and not frameworks or containers or application servers or whatever else that actively drives the system instead of being a helpful utility, the whole concept of being "Powered by Boost" is questionable. "Boosted by Boost" would be much more relevant. OK, that was a joke. ;-) Regards, -- Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com
Maciej Sobczak wrote:
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
However, I'm not sure what would approval process mean for projects that use Boost libraries, literally, do #include <boost/....hpp> in their sources and want to put "Powered By Boost" logo on their websites IMHO, permission to use this logo should be granted in that cases without restrictions.
In which case the whole concept will diffuse as it will be no different than "Powered by STL" or "Powered by IOStreams".
And, to be frank, as long as Boost libraries are *libraries* and not frameworks or containers or application servers or whatever else that actively drives the system instead of being a helpful utility, the whole concept of being "Powered by Boost" is questionable.
I don't see strong correspondence between Powered By STL and Powered By Boost. The former is too virtual and there are many implementations, but the latter is unique, a recognised project, a particular organisation and community. OTOH, Powered By Boost could be used as a word of appreciation expressed by a project to Boost, regardless of how much boost gets a project from Boost, in terms of how many libraries/elements it uses.
"Boosted by Boost" would be much more relevant.
OK, that was a joke. ;-)
:) Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Otherwise, it wouldn't be different from expecting projects asking for permission if they can write Project X uses Boost" on their website. Name "Boost" belongs to the very same matter of branding as logo.
Except that logos are copyrightable while names are not, if I remember correctly. Both are of course trademarkable.
Except that logos are copyrightable while names are not, if I remember correctly. Both are of course trademarkable.
You can copyright names in a given context. For example you can copyright boost so that no software library but your own may call itself "boost". It becomes a brand. But someone can come up with clothes called "Boost" and you can't prevent them from using your name unless you copyrighted the name of boost for clothes as well (or the usage will harm you somehow, as you can guess it's to who's going to get the best lawyers). Copyrights have a limited reach, you need to pay for copyright per country and per class. *Anyway...* Drafting a bit out of topic here and I'd like to give more context to my initial question. I've got a very limited marketing knowledge, but I do know that generally speaking you want to control how your name is used and talked about, hence my question about the usage policy of the "powered by boost". You may want to craft the logo license in such a way so that you can force people using the logo in a way you dislike to cease and desist (for example spamming software saying "powered by boost"). Ah maybe I'm just nitpicking... -Edouard __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4849 (20100208) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
You can copyright names in a given context. For example you can copyright boost so that no software >library but your own may call itself "boost". It becomes a brand. But someone can come up with clothes >called "Boost" and you can't prevent them from using your name unless you copyrighted the name of boost >for clothes as well (or the usage will harm you somehow, as you can guess it's to who's going to get the >best lawyers).
Copyrights have a limited reach, you need to pay for copyright per country and per class.
Sorry I red and wrote too quickly, I meant trademark, copyright is a different thing. You were correct about not being able to copyright a word in itself. -Edouard __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4849 (20100208) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:54:48 -0500, "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
Nice work. Let's say I want to advertise the usage of Boost in my products. What's the official policy? There isn't one yet. You can help to establish it if we choose to adopt the new logo.
Well. You just want to have some sort of approval process. I guess you just don't want the "powered by boost" logo floating around and being pasted on just any software. That's branding.
However, I'm not sure what would approval process mean for projects that use Boost libraries, literally, do #include <boost/....hpp> in their sources and want to put "Powered By Boost" logo on their websites IMHO, permission to use this logo should be granted in that cases without restrictions.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be different from expecting projects asking for permission if they can write Project X uses Boost" on their website. Name "Boost" belongs to the very same matter of branding as logo.
I don't see this as being about establishing rules for how the logo can be used; it's more about letting people do the right thing and not overstate their association. I suspect most people using the Boost logo outside of Boost do not mean to deceive, they just don't have any choices between using the logo (implying full endorsement from the Boost establishment) and not using the logo. In this context, it's more important to decide what choices we want to offer than devising a process for reprimanding people who (in our opinion) make the wrong choice. --Jeffrey Bosboom
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
Well. You just want to have some sort of approval process. I guess you just don't want the "powered by boost" logo floating around and being pasted on just any software. That's branding. I'm not sure how I can help you with it, but if you think I can just tell me how...
There's really no way to control it short of legal action. I'm in favor of the W3C model, where they provide their logos such as the W3C CSS or the W3C XHTML1.1 freely. It's why I think the "POWERED BY" logo needs to be provided separately and prominently on the web site. It actually helps fight brand dilution, because it gives people something to use other than the official boost icon. Patrick
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Horgan Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:56 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
edouard@fausse.info wrote:
Well. You just want to have some sort of approval process. I guess you just don't want the "powered by boost" logo floating around and being pasted on just any software. That's branding. I'm not sure how I can help you with it, but if you think I can just tell me how...
There's really no way to control it short of legal action. I'm in favor of the W3C model, where they provide their logos such as the W3C CSS or the W3C XHTML1.1 freely. It's why I think the "POWERED BY" logo needs to be provided separately and prominently on the web site. It actually helps fight brand dilution, because it gives people something to use other than the official boost icon.
Yes - agree completely - and since Boost is pretty much a legal non-entity with no money at all, we have no control whatever - except perhaps copyright (which we should claim by embedding into the logo png, just as we do for all code and docs). Paul PS svg versions will be useful for preparing pdf versions of docs - png don't seem to render as well with RenderX, the preferred tool. This can easily be done with Inkscape I believe.
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
PS svg versions will be useful for preparing pdf versions of docs - png don't seem to render as well with RenderX, the preferred tool. This can easily be done with Inkscape I believe.
I don't know what you mean by, "This can easily be done with Inkscape I believe." I know one issue with mis-rendering of bitmap graphics in pdfs is using an inappropriate pixel width image. If it has to be expanded by RenderX you'll get bad jaggies and if it needs to be scales smaller, you'll get aliasing issues. From the svg you can generate the same pixel width that the pdf will use. (It can be calculated if you know the right stuff, or trial and error will do as well.) Of course you can just use the svg since it scales without those sorts of problems. You need to open the svg file in an editor, such as inkscape, and turn on the visibility of the layer with the added text desired, and turn off the visibility of the others, since all of them are combined in one svg. Similarly, you need to turn on the visibility of either a clear (alpha) background, or a white background. The alpha background exists (even though you don't see it), to make the image the same size as with the white background. They're each rectangles. If you want, you don't even need a svg editor, since svg is an xml file. You can find the appropriate layers with vi or emacs and change the first style after the label that names the background or text to either display:none, to hide, or display:inline, to show. The label of the pertinent layers are "Powered By" (not the text itself, I just chose a layer label that reminded you of the layer's purpose), "Proposed For" (which I think is going away), and "For Use With". The label of the layers for the alternate backgrounds are "Alpha Background", and "White Background". Patrick
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of edouard@fausse.info Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:37 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:30:17 -0000, "John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan).
Nice work. Let's say I want to advertise the usage of Boost in my products.
What's the official policy?
Already Who's Using Boost? http://www.boost.org/users/uses.html provides a place to give details of your products and use of Boost on the Boost website. This "Powered by" logo acknowledges this use in *your documentation* etc. Paul
John Maddock wrote:
I like the "powered by" logos very much, the others I'm not so sure of. Personally I think proposed/sandbox libraries could use the "powered by" logo too?
They could, potentially, but that doesn't fit libraries that simply interoperate with or work like Boost libraries. If you accept the need for a different logo in those cases, then you can see that "for use with" fits better than "powered by" for proposed/sandbox libraries plus applies to the other categories. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of John Maddock Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:30 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan).
I like the "powered by" logos very much, the others I'm not so sure of. Personally I think proposed/sandbox libraries could use the "powered by" logo too?
They could - but then it goes without saying that *all* potential submissions will be "powered by" existing Boost libraries? The "For use with" is intended to indicate that this is a potential Boost library under development, but clearly showing it's not yet reviewed and accepted. The original issue was that stuff under development is using the Boost logo. Paul
John Maddock wrote:
To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan).
I like the "powered by" logos very much, the others I'm not so sure of. Personally I think proposed/sandbox libraries could use the "powered by" logo too?
Yes, that's been discussed, I don't have a problem with it, but someone else thought it confusing. Patrick
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
1 For projects that are written with Boost 'in mind', perhaps for submission, but are *not yet reviewed and accepted*.
"For use with" - logo for projects having some association with Boost, but are *not 'official'*.
(Many like red text to signal strongly that this is NOT (perhaps yet) a Boost approved library).
I don't think this is self-descriptive enough. For example, GIL is a Boost library, and GIL extensions are obviously "for use with" Boost. But I don't think "for use with" implies "not officially part of" Boost.
2 For projects that *use* Boost, and would like to acknowledge this - with thanks:
"Powered by" - logo for all projects *using* Boost.
(in addition to the 'Using Boost' listing on the website)
I really like this, Boost needs more publicity *from the places it's used*. Few people who haven't heard of Boost or who have a negative opinion of it will be going to the "Using Boost" listing, and those who bother to check it out won't be as persuaded by it as an endorsement from a Boost user.
To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html (produced by Patrick Hogan).
I have a minor issue with the right-justification of the "powered by" text. It seems to be presenting the illusion of being 'blown back' as the logo moves to the left (which fits with the logotype's slight right lean). Normally this would be fine, but the top of the 'b' grabs my eye as I scan left-to-right over the text, so I tend to see "boost powered by C++ libraries" instead of "powered by boost C++ libraries" -- I know what the logo says, it just feels weird to read. I'm not sure center- or left-justification would be any better, though, and it's a minor quibble. I'm happy enough to approve the logos as is.
PS Some were also in favour of a "Proposed for Boost" logo to be used only *for libraries in the review queue*, but not yet in a final release. Others felt this was unnecessary. So unless there is strong support for this, it does not form part of this proposal.
Not only is it necessary, it makes it easy for users of the logo to do the right thing, by not removing the logo when they leave the review queue. Also, with the recent pace of the review queue being as it is, this risks becoming a semi-permanent status, and I'd prefer not to advertise that. --Jeffrey Bosboom
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
1 For projects that are written with Boost 'in mind', perhaps for submission, but are *not yet reviewed and accepted*.
"For use with" - logo for projects having some association with Boost, but are *not 'official'*.
(Many like red text to signal strongly that this is NOT (perhaps yet) a Boost approved library).
I don't think this is self-descriptive enough. For example, GIL is a Boost library, and GIL extensions are obviously "for use with" Boost. But I don't think "for use with" implies "not officially part of" Boost.
To clarify, I mean that a GIL extension that has not gone through the Boost review process would probably display "for use with". But since extensions are "for use with" by nature, the special designator on the logo would not seem 'out of place' enough for a documentation reader to realize it means "not official". --Jeffrey Bosboom
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
PS Some were also in favour of a "Proposed for Boost" logo to be used only *for libraries in the review queue*, but not yet in a final release. Others felt this was unnecessary. So unless there is strong support for this, it does not form part of this
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote: proposal.
Not only is it necessary, it makes it easy for users of the logo to do the right thing, by not removing the logo when they leave the review queue. Also, with the recent pace of the review queue being as it is, this risks becoming a semi-permanent status, and I'd prefer not to advertise that.
s/necessary/unnecessary/ s/right/wrong/ Sorry for having to send a second correction e-mail; I will proofread more carefully next time. After all, the list isn't going anywhere while I type and read. --Jeffrey Bosboom
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
I don't think this is self-descriptive enough. For example, GIL is a Boost library, and GIL extensions are obviously "for use with" Boost. But I don't think "for use with" implies "not officially part of" Boost.
To clarify, I mean that a GIL extension that has not gone through the Boost review process would probably display "for use with". But since extensions are "for use with" by nature, the special designator on the logo would not seem 'out of place' enough for a documentation reader to realize it means "not official".
Please suggest an alternative. We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries. If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it. We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On 02/09/2010 04:47 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Please suggest an alternative. We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries. If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it. We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced.
I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant, too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted?
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 02/09/2010 04:47 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Please suggest an alternative. We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries. If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it. We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced.
I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant, too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted?
We discussed that. It can mean, "designed at the behest of," just as easily as it can mean, "designed for possible inclusion in." One of my concerns is that any logo put in a library's documentation should be acceptable even if the library is never submitted or is rejected and then developed outside of Boost. I don't think we should rely on the author of a rejected library taking positive action to "correct" the logo in that case. "For use with" is sufficiently innocuous as to not overstate the relationship in that case, or so we thought. Given that concern, please suggest a better alternative if you can think of one. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On 02/09/2010 11:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant, too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted?
We discussed that. It can mean, "designed at the behest of," just as easily as it can mean, "designed for possible inclusion in."
One of my concerns is that any logo put in a library's documentation should be acceptable even if the library is never submitted or is rejected and then developed outside of Boost. I don't think we should rely on the author of a rejected library taking positive action to "correct" the logo in that case. "For use with" is sufficiently innocuous as to not overstate the relationship in that case, or so we thought.
Given that concern, please suggest a better alternative if you can think of one.
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"? I hope guys with native English might come up with a few more wordings. "For use with" just doesn't describe the work as a possible addition to Boost (that is, in order to use it, you will have to integrate it with Boost). And in that regard it has the semantics very close to the "powered by" variant. I would like the logo to make it clear that the work is tightly coupled with Boost infrastructure, as opposed to the "powered by" variant, which implies the work merely uses Boost (and possibly not only Boost) as it deems necessary. We could also move away from the current attempt to put together the current logo and some phrase into a sentence. After all, a newly designed logo that simply says "[boost] extension" and differs enough from the official logo might be what we're looking for. We could also get rid of that screaming red color I so dislike.
On 02/10/2010 12:51 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 02/09/2010 11:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant, too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted?
We discussed that. It can mean, "designed at the behest of," just as easily as it can mean, "designed for possible inclusion in."
One of my concerns is that any logo put in a library's documentation should be acceptable even if the library is never submitted or is rejected and then developed outside of Boost. I don't think we should rely on the author of a rejected library taking positive action to "correct" the logo in that case. "For use with" is sufficiently innocuous as to not overstate the relationship in that case, or so we thought.
Given that concern, please suggest a better alternative if you can think of one.
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"? I hope guys with native English might come up with a few more wordings.
A few more, quite far-fetched though: "designed after [boost]", "combines with [boost]", "extends [boost]", "in line with [boost]", "bases on [boost]".
Andrey Semashev wrote:
"designed after [boost]", "combines with [boost]", "extends [boost]", "in line with [boost]", "bases on [boost]".
I had managed to stay away from this conversation... But would it not be much simpler to just not use the Boost logo? As in make your own logo to use like Spirit, and others have done. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Rene Rivera wrote:
I had managed to stay away from this conversation... But
I was surprised.
would it not be much simpler to just not use the Boost logo? As in make your own logo to use like Spirit, and others have done.
That requires that a programmer have graphical ability. Besides, as has been noted, I believe the new library template uses the official logo. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
I had managed to stay away from this conversation... But
I was surprised.
Having a 4 week old daughter at home helps to focus :-)
would it not be much simpler to just not use the Boost logo? As in make your own logo to use like Spirit, and others have done.
That requires that a programmer have graphical ability.
Then just don't use the Boost logo at all. This is something I've done.
Besides, as has been noted, I believe the new library template uses the official logo.
We should make that template not use a logo at all by default. And perhaps we should make it so you only get the Boost logo within the Boost tree. Otherwise you have to specify a logo you want to use, and get nothing otherwise. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Rene Rivera wrote:
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
I had managed to stay away from this conversation... But
I was surprised.
Having a 4 week old daughter at home helps to focus :-)
Congratulations! Your first?
would it not be much simpler to just not use the Boost logo? As in make your own logo to use like Spirit, and others have done.
That requires that a programmer have graphical ability.
Then just don't use the Boost logo at all. This is something I've done.
Besides, as has been noted, I believe the new library template uses the official logo.
We should make that template not use a logo at all by default. And perhaps we should make it so you only get the Boost logo within the Boost tree. Otherwise you have to specify a logo you want to use, and get nothing otherwise.
Using none means altering the documentation to later include one. It seems simpler to have a reference to a placeholder logo so, at most, the author need only change the image source URL upon acceptance. Having said that, using no logo or only one created by the author, nicely sidesteps this whole discussion! Maybe the template should reference an image that includes nothing but "Your logo here." _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
I had managed to stay away from this conversation... But I was surprised. Having a 4 week old daughter at home helps to focus :-)
Congratulations! Your first?
Yep, first! Having lots of fun.. And lots of pain.
would it not be much simpler to just not use the Boost logo? As in make your own logo to use like Spirit, and others have done.
That requires that a programmer have graphical ability. Then just don't use the Boost logo at all. This is something I've done.
Besides, as has been noted, I believe the new library template uses the official logo. We should make that template not use a logo at all by default. And perhaps we should make it so you only get the Boost logo within the Boost tree. Otherwise you have to specify a logo you want to use, and get nothing otherwise.
Using none means altering the documentation to later include one. It seems simpler to have a reference to a placeholder logo so, at most, the author need only change the image source URL upon acceptance.
It would have been as easy as overriding the default image with an appropriate xsl:param option during doc builds.
Having said that, using no logo or only one created by the author, nicely sidesteps this whole discussion!
I like obvious, and diplomatic, solutions ;-)
Maybe the template should reference an image that includes nothing but "Your logo here."
Well.. It's no longer an issue. I changed the XSL such that the Boost navbar, and hence logo, only show up when building within the Boost tree. Others that build outside the tree will not get the navbar by default. The can ask to include the navbar, but will also have to specify to include the Boost logo explicitly (or their own explicitly). So an appearance of the Boost logo outside of Boost should now be considered a deliberate choice (double choice at that). Enjoy ;-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:26 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
Rene Rivera wrote:
I had managed to stay away from this conversation... But
I was surprised.
would it not be much simpler to just not use the Boost logo? As in make your own logo to use like Spirit, and others have done.
That requires that a programmer have graphical ability. Besides, as has been noted, I believe the new library template uses the official logo.
Hi, For Boost.STM Justin created a variation of the offical log Toward Boost STM http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/stm/boost.png I have taken the same approach for some of my own libraries http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/async/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/bitfield/boost.png https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/conversion/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/interthreads/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/synchro/boost.png Making a variation of a logo doesn't requires too much graphical abilities. Maybe "Toward Boost XXX" could be considerd for libraries working towards an accepted Boost library. When I see the docs on the sandbox the "Toward Boost XXX" appears. If I move the docs to the Boost repository the Official Boost logo appears. Best, Vicente
vicente.botet wrote:
I have taken the same approach for some of my own libraries
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/async/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/bitfield/boost.png https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/conversion/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/interthreads/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/synchro/boost.png
If you'd like me to whip up some svgs like these but perhaps with the same font as the boost icon and perhaps a better balance, let me know and I'll do it for you. Patrick
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Horgan" <phorgan1@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
vicente.botet wrote:
I have taken the same approach for some of my own libraries
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/async/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/bitfield/boost.png https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/conversion/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/interthreads/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/synchro/boost.png
If you'd like me to whip up some svgs like these but perhaps with the same font as the boost icon and perhaps a better balance, let me know and I'll do it for you.
You are right, we don't take care of these aspects. I appreciate your offer. Please, do it. Vicente
On 02/10/2010 02:10 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
Hi,
For Boost.STM Justin created a variation of the offical log
Toward Boost STM http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/stm/boost.png
I have taken the same approach for some of my own libraries
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/async/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/bitfield/boost.png https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/conversion/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/interthreads/boost.png http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/synchro/boost.png
Making a variation of a logo doesn't requires too much graphical abilities. Maybe "Toward Boost XXX" could be considerd for libraries working towards an accepted Boost library.
When I see the docs on the sandbox the "Toward Boost XXX" appears. If I move the docs to the Boost repository the Official Boost logo appears.
"Toward" means that the library is on the move to get proposed (accepted) to Boost eventually, and this is not always the case. But I like the idea of providing a bootstrap of a library-specific logo.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrey Semashev" <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
On 02/10/2010 02:10 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
Hi,
For Boost.STM Justin created a variation of the offical log
Toward Boost STM http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/stm/boost.png
Making a variation of a logo doesn't requires too much graphical abilities. Maybe "Toward Boost XXX" could be considerd for libraries working towards an accepted Boost library.
When I see the docs on the sandbox the "Toward Boost XXX" appears. If I move the docs to the Boost repository the Official Boost logo appears.
"Toward" means that the library is on the move to get proposed (accepted) to Boost eventually, and this is not always the case. But I like the idea of providing a bootstrap of a library-specific logo.
This is exactly the sens I find in Toward, a library that is working on a proposal for review and at the end expect to be accepted in Boost. Libraries that don't pretend this should use a "Powered by" logo, as no affiliation to Boost is in the mind of the authors. IMO it is useful to distinguish these libraries, be using a specific logo or via a page like the Libraies Under Construction. Vicente
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 02/09/2010 11:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
One of my concerns is that any logo put in a library's documentation should be acceptable even if the library is never submitted or is rejected and then developed outside of Boost. I don't think we should rely on the author of a rejected library taking positive action to "correct" the logo in that case. "For use with" is sufficiently innocuous as to not overstate the relationship in that case, or so we thought.
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"? I hope guys with native English might come up with a few more wordings.
I am a native English speaker and I suggested "for use with."
"For use with" just doesn't describe the work as a possible addition to Boost (that is, in order to use it, you will have to integrate it with Boost).
That's right. I am trying to avoid saying that much because the library may never be submitted for review, much less be accepted. If the library languishes or is rejected and is developed in some other context than Boost, numerous other wordings imply more than I'd like. "For use with" means something has been designed to work with Boost whether by extending or complementing what's provided by Boost or by virtue of ultimately being submitted for review and, hopefully, acceptance. Upon acceptance, a library author will happily change to the official logo.
And in that regard it has the semantics very close to the "powered by" variant.
Not at all. "Powered by" means a product uses Boost. Nothing more. There's no claim of interoperability with or eventual submission to Boost.
I would like the logo to make it clear that the work is tightly coupled with Boost infrastructure, as opposed
That runs counter to the concern I expressed above: that a work that is rejected and taken elsewhere requires positive action by the author to remove the strong association with Boost which is tantamount to sanction. I'd prefer a more benign association.
We could also move away from the current attempt to put together the current logo and some phrase into a sentence. After all, a newly designed logo that simply says "[boost] extension" and differs enough from the official logo might be what we're looking for. We could also get rid of that screaming red color I so dislike.
I have no problem with a redesigned logo. Perhaps shrinking the original logo and overpowering it with the added text would work. I'd still go for a different color or other stylistic treatment of the text, even if it isn't red. Something like this: BEING DEVELOPED FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN <> Boost <> C++ Libraries The original logo could go to the lower right, too: UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR POSSIBLE <> Boost INCLUSION IN <> C++ Libraries _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On 02/10/2010 01:21 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
"For use with" just doesn't describe the work as a possible addition to Boost (that is, in order to use it, you will have to integrate it with Boost).
That's right. I am trying to avoid saying that much because the library may never be submitted for review, much less be accepted. If the library languishes or is rejected and is developed in some other context than Boost, numerous other wordings imply more than I'd like.
"For use with" means something has been designed to work with Boost whether by extending or complementing what's provided by Boost or by virtue of ultimately being submitted for review and, hopefully, acceptance. Upon acceptance, a library author will happily change to the official logo.
And in that regard it has the semantics very close to the "powered by" variant.
Not at all. "Powered by" means a product uses Boost. Nothing more. There's no claim of interoperability with or eventual submission to Boost.
Then I don't see the difference between "For use with" and "Powered by". If there isn't (much) difference, I'm for keeping the number of logos to a minimum and leaving only one of them, the "powered by" one.
I would like the logo to make it clear that the work is tightly coupled with Boost infrastructure, as opposed
That runs counter to the concern I expressed above: that a work that is rejected and taken elsewhere requires positive action by the author to remove the strong association with Boost which is tantamount to sanction. I'd prefer a more benign association.
That doesn't mean it was or will be proposed, accepted or anything. It only means that the library follows the approach of Boost libraries, and potentially may be integrated with the Boost distribution, or even requires that to work. To me, this is the only difference from the "powered by" logo, that matters to users and the library author, and it deserves to be expressed in a separate logo.
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 02/10/2010 01:21 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
"For use with" means something has been designed to work with Boost whether by extending or complementing what's provided by Boost or by virtue of ultimately being submitted for review and, hopefully, acceptance. Upon acceptance, a library author will happily change to the official logo.
And in that regard it has the semantics very close to the "powered by" variant.
Not at all. "Powered by" means a product uses Boost. Nothing more. There's no claim of interoperability with or eventual submission to Boost.
Then I don't see the difference between "For use with" and "Powered by". If there isn't (much) difference, I'm for keeping the number of logos to a minimum and leaving only one of them, the "powered by" one.
"Powered by" means an application or library *uses* Boost. "For use with" means the library interoperates with existing Boost libraries or is intended to be submitted to Boost at some point. There is a significant difference in intention. If you are saying that there isn't much difference in the two phrases, I see a significant difference, but can't make you see it.
I would like the logo to make it clear that the work is tightly coupled with Boost infrastructure, as opposed
That runs counter to the concern I expressed above: that a work that is rejected and taken elsewhere requires positive action by the author to remove the strong association with Boost which is tantamount to sanction. I'd prefer a more benign association.
That doesn't mean it was or will be proposed, accepted or anything. It only means that the library follows the approach of Boost libraries, and potentially may be integrated with the Boost distribution, or even requires that to work. To me, this is the only difference from the "powered by" logo, that matters to users and the library author, and it deserves to be expressed in a separate logo.
Curious. I don't think there's the least need for a logo that indicates a library is organized in the fashion of Boost libraries. Libraries can be designed with the express purpose of augmenting Boost libraries without being Boost libraries themselves. Consider someone creating additional algorithms for Boost.StringAlgos. Sure, they should submit them for possible inclusion, but they might have a narrow focus for internal use. Nevertheless, a "for use with" type logo is informative. Likewise, a library of extensions which may one day be incorporated into a Boost library are "for use with" that Boost library, so the logo is informative. In those cases, however, the library isn't "powered by" Boost so much as intended to work alongside Boost. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09-02-2010 23:21, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 02/09/2010 11:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote: "unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"?
Since people are piping up about now... I sort of like the "unofficial extension" idea. It brings the unofficial part out in the open and at the same time hints that this will not work without the rest of boost. I'd probably say just Unofficial Extension <>Boost <>C++ Libraries [snip]
I have no problem with a redesigned logo. Perhaps shrinking the original logo and overpowering it with the added text would work. I'd still go for a different color or other stylistic treatment of the text, even if it isn't red. Something like this:
BEING DEVELOPED FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN <> Boost <> C++ Libraries
The original logo could go to the lower right, too:
UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR POSSIBLE <> Boost INCLUSION IN <> C++ Libraries
I like this idea too, however. Maybe we should make the boost logo itself smaller (for unofficial extensions), so that the /logo/ is added to the /unofficial extension/ part, not the other way around. /Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLclddAAoJEKd8gmwzkHPJ1BYH/0nGqQa0CE6aCohDFo7xzkre 4iqY/WjIMviQt+GBHy2kDXJtJu6E0OECSt9Gq/+L9Hh8U+vR09zp1RM8BGYcq+Iv UE4IldMR2xhGugTRH41YuvdF6mJQPcin17iDDvFZznr5dX0akLdW5Nh2sgq1p1KM AHF8THZxADEps07YyDIPV3VIQOFXsAFQnbXAkTq8FoWRyAYNn1+U3s6SD/6f+jEL QXk1dLfoMWF3iUHjIZcgV5MxxztKIQsw97/Tp7N2ms1oa1ZR+Z/PDgjCA5v06AxA w08iofCdA2blGfqyxvMXtHgTsIXhpINxj1ayupxpQT3YvpN44hTYss3F/djGY1Y= =dzuX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I originally spawned this thread with an observation regarding what I felt was inappropriate usage of boost logo. One can use any other logo he wants for any purpose he wants as far as I'm concerned. After all, it's still a free country. My only suggestion is that boost.org copyright the boost logo - ( Last time I looked - this cost $25 - its probably more now) and create a policy for it's usage. That would satisfy my concerns and I don't think we or anyone else has the authority to enforce some other logo on anyone else. Robert Ramey
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:28 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
I originally spawned this thread with an observation regarding what I felt was inappropriate usage of boost logo. One can use any other logo he wants for any purpose he wants as far as I'm concerned. After all, it's still a free country. My only suggestion is that boost.org copyright the boost logo - ( Last time I looked - this cost $25 - its probably more now) and create a policy for its usage.
I don't think we need to do anything more than complete the .png metadata fields Dublin Core Entities: title, date, creator, publisher, holder of rights ... and chose a license, perhaps or for developing libraries http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and perhaps for the Boost 'official' logo http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ This can easily be done for .pngs and svgs with several tools, including Inkscape. A no-cost option ;-) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
Robert Ramey wrote:
I originally spawned this thread with an observation regarding what I felt was inappropriate usage of boost logo. That WAS you, wasn't it:) See what you stirred up? <grin;> One can use any other logo he wants for any purpose he wants as far as I'm concerned. After all, it's still a free country. My only suggestion is that boost.org copyright the boost logo - ( Last time I looked - this cost $25 - its probably more now) and create a policy for it's usage.
Is it like a written work which is copyright upon creation with registering only of use if the ownership might come into doubt? If so, then I wouldn't see the need because boost has demonstrated ownership publicly.
That would satisfy my concerns and I don't think we or anyone else has the authority to enforce some other logo on anyone else.
+1 Patrick
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis wrote:
Since people are piping up about now... I sort of like the "unofficial extension" idea. It brings the unofficial part out in the open and at the same time hints that this will not work without the rest of boost. I'd probably say just
Unofficial Extension <>Boost <>C++ Libraries
A version of this is on the web at http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html Patrick
Patrick Horgan wrote:
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis wrote:
Unofficial Extension <>Boost <>C++ Libraries
A version of this is on the web at http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html
Just a friendly note: "offical" (sic) is misspelled in the logos. --Jeffrey Bosboom
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
Patrick Horgan wrote:
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis wrote:
Unofficial Extension <>Boost <>C++ Libraries
A version of this is on the web at http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html
Just a friendly note: "offical" (sic) is misspelled in the logos. Doh! Thanks:) All better.
Patrick
Gottlob Frege wrote:
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"?
"complements" Boost might work.
compliments boost is nice too:) I have to say that I'm glad that we're getting more voices into the discussion. I had a friend recently on another list tell me that he didn't like that I had pulled his offline comment on something from the list back on to the list. He was afraid that he'd be wrong or stupid or something. I told him that the nature of brainstorming is that you throw out a LOT of silly/wrong/bizarre things to free up everyone's thinking and creativity, and THEN maybe the magic happens. "FOR USE WITH" doesn't get me all excited, but it fits the criteria, it works. Nothing else has so far (including several that I came up with). BUT that doesn't mean that they aren't good, people reading them think about what they like about them and what doesn't work, and then a flash of inspiration happens--so throw so more out! Patrick
Gottlob Frege wrote:
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"?
"complements" Boost might work.
I think that's a fine alternative to "for use with." _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On Thursday, February 11, 2010, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Gottlob Frege wrote:
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"?
"complements" Boost might work.
I think that's a fine alternative to "for use with."
We could also just stick a big "-ish" overlapping the end of "boost". ie "boost-ish".
Gottlob Frege wrote:
We could also just stick a big "-ish" overlapping the end of "boost".
ie "boost-ish".
:) Unfortunately, the logo would read, "Boost-ish C++ Libraries," rather than "A Boost-ish C++ Library." _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gottlob Frege Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:58 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
Gottlob Frege wrote:
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"?
"complements" Boost might work.
I think that's a fine alternative to "for use with."
A result of a brainstorming session (always come up with some silly ideas but ...) Inspired by Boost For anything that isn't Boost - but perhaps aspires to become a Boost library. And for products the *USE* Boost (and are acknowledging this - hopefully with thanks) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
Sorry to top post on my own message but the previous one didn't appear as I had hoped. I've *attached* a new suggestion for variants of the Boost logo - "Inspired for Boost". To recap: "Powered by Boost" - for code the just *uses* Boost. An 'acknowledgement and thank you' logo. "Inspired by Boost" - For anything that isn't 'official Boost' - but perhaps aspires to become a Boost library. (We could similarly produce a "Proposed for Boost" for libraries in the (long) review queue). Paul PS I've attached the logos as svg and png. Depending on your browser, you will see how nicely the svg version displays with increasing size - but that the font Denmark chosen isn't supported by Firefox. I suspect we could use another more common font instead, perhaps Arial italic? If you use MS IE (without the Adobe addin) you won't see anything at all from the svg versions :-(
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Paul A. Bristow Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:58 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gottlob Frege Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:58 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
<snipped>
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
"Powered by Boost" - for code the just *uses* Boost. An 'acknowledgement and thank you' logo.
"Inspired by Boost" - For anything that isn't 'official Boost' - but perhaps aspires to become a Boost library.
You're probably disappointed to get no replies yet. I had considered that Rene's change to the document template put the latter to rest. Any library wanting a logo must find/create one and specify it via the XML parameters Rene designated. However, upon consideration, I see that logo as useful for libraries related to Boost (but not intended for submission) or as a handy fallback for authors not wanting to create their own. I do still like "Powered by." _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote:
Sorry to top post on my own message but the previous one didn't appear as I had hoped.
I've *attached* a new suggestion for variants of the Boost logo - "Inspired for Boost".
To recap:
"Powered by Boost" - for code the just *uses* Boost. An 'acknowledgement and thank you' logo.
"Inspired by Boost" - For anything that isn't 'official Boost' - but perhaps aspires to become a Boost library.
(We could similarly produce a "Proposed for Boost" for libraries in the (long) review queue).
Paul
PS I've attached the logos as svg and png.
Depending on your browser, you will see how nicely the svg version displays with increasing size - but that the font Denmark chosen isn't supported by Firefox. I suspect we could use another more common font instead, perhaps Arial italic?
If you use MS IE (without the Adobe addin) you won't see anything at all from the svg versions :-(
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Paul A. Bristow Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:58 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gottlob Frege Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:58 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
<snipped>
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
I really like the phrasing. However, to avoid confusion and any sense of misunderstanding, I think the 'Inspired by' would need to be bigger - to the point of significantly overlapping 'boost'. Otherwise I'd feel 'sneaky' about using it - as it still looks like I'm trying to associate myself with boost more than I deserve. It also has less 'strength' of meaning than 'for use with' (or 'complements') because 'inspired' could mean almost anything... Tony
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
Depending on your browser, you will see how nicely the svg version displays with increasing size - but that the font Denmark chosen isn't supported by Firefox. I suspect we could use another more common font instead, perhaps Arial italic?
The problem with this is that the trademark uses Denmark. It's freely available and if pngs for websites are generated on a machine with Denmark, then of course it is used. Patrick
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Horgan Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:23 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
Depending on your browser, you will see how nicely the svg version displays with increasing size - but that the font Denmark chosen isn't supported by Firefox. I suspect we could use another more common font instead, perhaps Arial italic?
The problem with this is that the trademark uses Denmark. It's freely available and if pngs for websites are generated on a machine with Denmark, then of course it is used.
You are quite right, and the svg *may* only be needed for pdf generation, so this is a detail that can be sorted by someone who knows more than I. But I wanted potential users to see what the logos would look like. I agree too that the red "Inspired by" and "Powered by" would be better if bigger, and attach the png versions in a bigger font. So is there support for optional use of these logos in 'Not-Official-Boost' docs? (Using Rene Rivera's new <xsl:param>boost.image="Inspired by Boost.png" option). Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
But I wanted potential users to see what the logos would look like.
I agree too that the red "Inspired by" and "Powered by" would be better if bigger, and attach the png versions in a bigger font.
So is there support for optional use of these logos in 'Not-Official-Boost'docs?
The question is probably about the text of the logos, because Patricks logos definitively look more pleasing to the eye. I have nothing against the "Inspired by" text, but will probably stick with the "Powered by" text. It is simply the more accurate description of the situation in my opinion: - using of boost quickbook framework - using of boost build/test framework - using of boost libraries - using of boost mailing lists - using of boost sandbox "hosting" Regards, Thomas
On 02/09/2010 04:47 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Please suggest an alternative. We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries. If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it. We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced.
I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant, too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted? The issue was the potential ambiguity of designed for. It could mean, "I designed this for possible future inclusion in boost", or "I designed
Andrey Semashev wrote: this under contract from boost". One implies no real connection with boost, and the other an official connection with boost. We know the difference, but the vast bulk of the users of boost don't read this list and don't know how things work. The original purpose of this effort was to find something that someone could use as a placeholder for a proposed library that wouldn't imply to the general public a connection to boost, either during the different stages of proposal/submission, or if the submission was withdrawn, and the logo left in the documentation. It's been really hard because when we've come up with proposals for wording, of course we did it with a meaning in mind, and with the background of experience on this list. It's really hard to see the alternate meanings that a non-insider might come up with, but it's important to do. Please come up with alternatives though. It's really been a small conversation, and a larger conversation would be a good thing. I might mention that I don't think that anyone came up with either "Boosted by boost", or "Goosed by boost" as an alternative to "Powered by boost". Isn't that a good thing;) Patrick
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
I don't think this is self-descriptive enough. For example, GIL is a Boost library, and GIL extensions are obviously "for use with" Boost. But I don't think "for use with" implies "not officially part of" Boost. To clarify, I mean that a GIL extension that has not gone
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote: through the Boost review process would probably display "for use with". But since extensions are "for use with" by nature, the special designator on the logo would not seem 'out of place' enough for a documentation reader to realize it means "not official".
Please suggest an alternative. We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries. If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it. We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced.
If the message we want to convey is that the library is not part of Boost, perhaps we should just say "not part of [boost C++ libraries]". This might cause some reader confusion as to why the logo is used at all, but it makes very clear that no official approval has been granted. --Jeffrey Bosboom
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Please suggest an alternative. We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries. If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it. We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced.
If the message we want to convey is that the library is not part of Boost, perhaps we should just say "not part of [boost C++ libraries]". This might cause some reader confusion as to why the logo is used at all, but it makes very clear that no official approval has been granted. We also want to encourage people to submit libraries, and to some
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote: people, asking them to put this message on their software would seem mean. (Yes, there are sensitive geeks;) Patrick
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
1 For projects that are written with Boost 'in mind', perhaps for submission, but are *not yet reviewed and accepted*.
"For use with" - logo for projects having some association with Boost, but are *not 'official'*.
(Many like red text to signal strongly that this is NOT (perhaps yet) a Boost approved library).
I don't think this is self-descriptive enough. For example, GIL is a Boost library, and GIL extensions are obviously "for use with" Boost. But I don't think "for use with" implies "not officially part of" Boost.
"For use with" is quite clear to me as not being part of but compatible with something. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
There are many projects springing up, often with smart documentation using the Boost Logo,
What's smart documentation?
(These logos will be available in bitmap, png and svg formats ready to be used in html and pdf docs).
png is a bitmap format--are you considering another? Patrick
Paul A. Bristow skrev:
After many discussions on the thread
"Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation"
that many will have tired of,
a few with more stamina have agreed the following proposal for wider agreement.
Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo. ===============================
I for both these new logos. "Powered by" should apply to spinoff projects, and the other logo to libraries under review/development. -Thorste
participants (18)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis -
Edouard A. -
edouard＠fausse.info
-
Gottlob Frege -
Jeffrey Bosboom -
John Maddock -
Maciej Sobczak -
Mateusz Loskot -
Mathias Gaunard -
Patrick Horgan -
Paul A. Bristow -
Rene Rivera -
Robert Ramey -
Stewart, Robert -
Thomas Klimpel -
Thorsten Ottosen -
vicente.botet