New Logo Discussion

Vinnie Falco

17 Jul 2024 17 Jul '24

6:59 p.m.

Hi. It is CppCon 2024 season, and the C++ Alliance is working on letting people know all the new and exciting things happening in Boost. We're doing this with Boost labeled conference shirts, and a beautiful brochure. You can see a draft of this promotional piece here (note: work in progress): https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use. I am hoping this will spark the necessary discussion. Here are things to consider: * The logo is professionally designed by https://grainandmortar.com/ at a cost of $12,000 * Peter Dimov likes the image (this should not be construed as his endorsement or opposition to any of the above). * The image is a trademark of The C++ Alliance: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98417319&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch * Usage of the logo is governed by our Logo Usage Policy, a product of legal review at a cost of $4,000: https://www.boost.io/doc/contributor-guide/docs/logo-policy-media-guide.html * The Logo Usage Policy allows free usage without permission in Boost-related contexts. Otherwise, explicit written permission from the Alliance is required. * Trademark ownership by a registered entity with sufficient resources is necessary to protect the mark, which David Sankel alludes to here: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2024/03/256092.php * Adopting this logo costs Boost nothing. If our proposed arrangement stops working for the community, the libraries can easily adopt a different logo (including the old one, or none). Put simply, I am asking the Boost community to entrust The C++ Alliance.with the responsibility of establishing and maintaining this new Boost logo. Thanks :)

Show replies by date

Robert Ramey

17 Jul 17 Jul

7:42 p.m.

On 7/17/24 11:59 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

Hi. It is CppCon 2024 season, and the C++ Alliance is working on letting people know all the new and exciting things happening in Boost. We're doing this with Boost labeled conference shirts, and a beautiful brochure. You can see a draft of this promotional piece here (note: work in progress):

https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf

FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community inclusive process with many submissions and designs. Also FWIW - when an organization starts messing with it's logo, I take it as a sign that they are stuck and don't know what else to do. Robert Ramey

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

7:49 p.m.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

On 7/17/24 11:59 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...
Hi. It is CppCon 2024 season, and the C++ Alliance is working on letting people know all the new and exciting things happening in Boost. We're doing this with Boost labeled conference shirts, and a beautiful brochure. You can see a draft of this promotional piece here (note: work in progress):

https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf

FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community inclusive process with many submissions and designs.

It wasn't. The logo picked by the community in that process was never used. What is currently used was the result of private design between the Boost Steering Committee and the artist that "won" that logo contest. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Robert Ramey

8:24 p.m.

On 7/17/24 12:49 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...
On 7/17/24 11:59 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...
Hi. It is CppCon 2024 season, and the C++ Alliance is working on letting people know all the new and exciting things happening in Boost. We're doing this with Boost labeled conference shirts, and a beautiful brochure. You can see a draft of this promotional piece here (note: work in progress):

https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf

FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community inclusive process with many submissions and designs.

It wasn't. The logo picked by the community in that process was never used. What is currently used was the result of private design between the Boost Steering Committee and the artist that "won" that logo contest.

Hmmm - I do remember the contest, people submitting, and finally a logo being selected. But truth is I didn't follow the process in detail. Robert Ramey

Joel de Guzman

11:50 p.m.

On 7/18/24 3:49 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

...

...
On 7/17/24 11:59 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...
Hi. It is CppCon 2024 season, and the C++ Alliance is working on letting people know all the new and exciting things happening in Boost. We're doing this with Boost labeled conference shirts, and a beautiful brochure. You can see a draft of this promotional piece here (note: work in progress):

https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf

FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community inclusive process with many submissions and designs. It wasn't. The logo picked by the community in that process was never used. What is currently used was the result of private design between

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost wrote: the Boost Steering Committee and the artist that "won" that logo contest. That is not correct. I was one of the major proponents of that logo contest (if not spearheded it). And I am not a member of the Boost Steering Committee. That contest was public and was discussed in the Boost list. It is NOT a private design.

Here's part of the discussion (I do not have time to search all): https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2005/03/81416.php You can see clearly I was asking for votes. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman Cycfi Research, Inc.

Vinnie Falco

8:38 p.m.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community inclusive process with many submissions and designs.

Thanks. Upon reviewing my initial post I think I could have communicated more clearly. Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options: 1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark 2. No change

...

Also FWIW - when an organization starts messing with it's logo, I take it as a sign that they are stuck and don't know what else to do.

I agree that gratuitous changes in trade dress presage a decline in quality. However, that is not what is happening here. The current situation is that Boost has a roughly 15-year old logo which has no trademark and does not evoke Boost qualities of technical excellence and innovation. For example, a thought experiment. Ask C++ users who are not on the mailing list or contributors to Boost if they recognize this image: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/847509124312989696/vv1ev8i__400x400.jpg It is also true that aesthetics are subjective. However, all else being equal, it is more likely that someone will associate the word "Boost" with a logo that looks like the letter "B", than they will associate it with a logo consisting of three partially overlapping hexagons. Adopting a logo is a necessary but insufficient condition to establish a brand. One must also use the image mark often and and consistent with the project's values for the public to associate the image with the project. This is explained in greater detail here: https://www.boost.io/doc/contributor-guide/docs/logo-policy-media-guide.html... One might rightly ask, "why not just start using the old mark often and consistently?" This is better than what we are doing now (which is nothing) but suffers from the problem that the old mark is associated with old things which represent stagnation. A new mark, with accompanying guidance on usage, transmits needed momentum to our Boost renaissance by informing the public that things are now changing for the better. Thanks

Andrey Semashev

11:05 p.m.

On 7/17/24 23:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

2. No change

2. No change.

...

From the personal preference standpoint, I actually like the current logo more than the proposed new one. I think, it better represents the modular nature of Boost. Yes, Boost is a *collection* of libraries, despite that it may appear monolithic to some users, which is something we are moving away from. And the current logo is simply more aesthetically pleasing to me.

...

From the legal standpoint, I'm not even remotely familiar with the

I should note that the current logo is used as a base for a number of library-specific logos, which play nicely together: https://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos I don't see the proposed logo as being composable in the same way. No, "B" being the first letter of "Boost" does not give points to the new logo. There are plenty examples of logos being not letters at all, and yet those logos are very recognizable among the target audience. A few examples are Windows, Ubuntu, GNU, GitHub, StackOverflow. The current logo may not be as widely recognized as some of those examples, but I don't see how changing the logo would fix that, even if that is something that needs to be fixed in the first place. If anything, changing the logo reduces Boost's recognition. trademark law, so I cannot evaluate the legal consequences of the logo being owned by The C++ Alliance. But I do not like that an unrelated organization would control the logo and would need to be consulted regarding the usage of the logo. And I just don't see the sufficient reasons for changing the logo. You haven't stated the problem that changing the logo is supposed to fix, other than the supposed perception by the public, which I will address below.

...

One might rightly ask, "why not just start using the old mark often and consistently?" This is better than what we are doing now (which is nothing) but suffers from the problem that the old mark is associated with old things which represent stagnation. A new mark, with accompanying guidance on usage, transmits needed momentum to our Boost renaissance by informing the public that things are now changing for the better.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this marketing jabbering. Fundamentally, Boost has not changed. It always was, is, and hopefully will be a collection of peer-reviewed C++ libraries, and the current logo represents this quite well. I'm not sure what you're referring to as "renaissance", but as far as I'm concerned there was no stagnation to begin with. Perhaps, you refer to us switching to C++11 as a baseline or better CMake support? In my view, those are, while important, but still incremental steps in Boost's evolution. Is it the new website? It's status isn't clear yet, and with the dispute between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation its future is uncertain (and this situation, BTW, does *not* improve the public image of Boost). Perhaps, there is some social side of things that I'm not aware of? But frankly, public relations are not my area of interest anyway. So, I'm probably not the kind of person you want to ask for opinion on social or marketing matters. In any case, whether there is a perception problem associated with the current logo or not, I'm not convinced that changing the logo would solve it. You can draw whatever logo you like, but if some people don't like or use Boost for whatever reason (which, I'm pretty sure, is not the logo), they won't like it more with the new logo either. The best we can do to fix this is to make Boost actually better in ways that affect those people - as long as we agree that this would be a change for the better. And, of course, there are people who will not like us no matter what, and that's fine, too. There's no point in trying to appeal to everyone. With that said, I can understand that you may want to "refresh" the current logo to better fit in the new website or something. That would be a more reasonable approach, IMO, as it would preserve the basic design and spirit of the logo, maintain the recognition among the community (however low you might think it is) and keep it compatible with derivative library-specific logos, but still freshen it up a bit and make it blend better with the new website.

Joel de Guzman

11:29 p.m.

On 7/18/24 7:05 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

...
Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

2. No change

On 7/17/24 23:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: 2. No change.

From the personal preference standpoint, I actually like the current logo more than the proposed new one. I think, it better represents the modular nature of Boost. Yes, Boost is a *collection* of libraries, despite that it may appear monolithic to some users, which is something we are moving away from. And the current logo is simply more aesthetically pleasing to me.

No change. I prefer the current design. The bee hive also represents the community working together nurturing top-notch software. It's been a long time, but if memory serves me right, I spearheaded the logo contest, or at least took a major part, back in the day when I was still very active. That logo embodies genuine community effort, which cannot be replaced by something commissioned with a hefty price tag. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman Cycfi Research, Inc.

Pranam Lashkari

18 Jul 18 Jul

12:32 a.m.

Completely agree with everything said here, the current logo has its personality and meaning, while the new logo looks very generic (googling "B logo with bolt" gave me tons of similar results in all shapes and sizes). If we really wanna change something and modernise then I could get behind a change like we see from windows 8 logo to windows 11 logo. So we can keep our well recognized logo with all the meanings attached to it. On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 01:05, Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 7/17/24 23:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...
Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

2. No change

2. No change.

From the personal preference standpoint, I actually like the current logo more than the proposed new one. I think, it better represents the modular nature of Boost. Yes, Boost is a *collection* of libraries, despite that it may appear monolithic to some users, which is something we are moving away from. And the current logo is simply more aesthetically pleasing to me.

I should note that the current logo is used as a base for a number of library-specific logos, which play nicely together:

https://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos

I don't see the proposed logo as being composable in the same way.

No, "B" being the first letter of "Boost" does not give points to the new logo. There are plenty examples of logos being not letters at all, and yet those logos are very recognizable among the target audience. A few examples are Windows, Ubuntu, GNU, GitHub, StackOverflow. The current logo may not be as widely recognized as some of those examples, but I don't see how changing the logo would fix that, even if that is something that needs to be fixed in the first place. If anything, changing the logo reduces Boost's recognition.

From the legal standpoint, I'm not even remotely familiar with the trademark law, so I cannot evaluate the legal consequences of the logo being owned by The C++ Alliance. But I do not like that an unrelated organization would control the logo and would need to be consulted regarding the usage of the logo.

And I just don't see the sufficient reasons for changing the logo. You haven't stated the problem that changing the logo is supposed to fix, other than the supposed perception by the public, which I will address below.

...
One might rightly ask, "why not just start using the old mark often and consistently?" This is better than what we are doing now (which is nothing) but suffers from the problem that the old mark is associated with old things which represent stagnation. A new mark, with accompanying guidance on usage, transmits needed momentum to our Boost renaissance by informing the public that things are now changing for the better.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this marketing jabbering. Fundamentally, Boost has not changed. It always was, is, and hopefully will be a collection of peer-reviewed C++ libraries, and the current logo represents this quite well.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "renaissance", but as far as I'm concerned there was no stagnation to begin with. Perhaps, you refer to us switching to C++11 as a baseline or better CMake support? In my view, those are, while important, but still incremental steps in Boost's evolution. Is it the new website? It's status isn't clear yet, and with the dispute between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation its future is uncertain (and this situation, BTW, does *not* improve the public image of Boost). Perhaps, there is some social side of things that I'm not aware of? But frankly, public relations are not my area of interest anyway. So, I'm probably not the kind of person you want to ask for opinion on social or marketing matters.

In any case, whether there is a perception problem associated with the current logo or not, I'm not convinced that changing the logo would solve it. You can draw whatever logo you like, but if some people don't like or use Boost for whatever reason (which, I'm pretty sure, is not the logo), they won't like it more with the new logo either. The best we can do to fix this is to make Boost actually better in ways that affect those people - as long as we agree that this would be a change for the better. And, of course, there are people who will not like us no matter what, and that's fine, too. There's no point in trying to appeal to everyone.

With that said, I can understand that you may want to "refresh" the current logo to better fit in the new website or something. That would be a more reasonable approach, IMO, as it would preserve the basic design and spirit of the logo, maintain the recognition among the community (however low you might think it is) and keep it compatible with derivative library-specific logos, but still freshen it up a bit and make it blend better with the new website.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

-- Thank you, Pranam Lashkari, https://lpranam.github.io/

Vinnie Falco

5:05 p.m.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:05 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "renaissance", but as far as I'm concerned there was no stagnation to begin with.

The mailing list has seen a 92% drop in yearly posts since 2008. And since then, engagement has gone down in every year: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-ML-Charts.pdf Anecdotally, there are fewer people who participate in formal reviews. And even fewer who are not employed by the C++ Alliance (a troubling development). Thanks

Andrey Semashev

17 Jul 17 Jul

11:21 p.m.

On 7/17/24 23:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

Adopting a logo is a necessary but insufficient condition to establish a brand. One must also use the image mark often and and consistent with the project's values for the public to associate the image with the project. This is explained in greater detail here:

https://www.boost.io/doc/contributor-guide/docs/logo-policy-media-guide.html...

I see this paragraph as problematic: <quote> A trademark is a name or design that tells the world the source of a good or service. Protecting trademarks for an open-source project is particularly important. Anyone can change the source code and produce a product from that code, so it’s important that only the original product, or variations that have been approved by the project, use the project’s trademarks. </quote> 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.

Vinnie Falco

18 Jul 18 Jul

midnight

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:21 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

I think, this violates BSL and I find this unacceptable.

I agree, this is a problem (if true). It is not the intent to prevent people from improving the distribution. On the other hand if someone wants to package some malware into the zip file with a Boost release, I would prefer that we could stop them from using the mark. Very happy to hear ideas on how to adjust the balance between openness and safety. Thanks

Julien Blanc

8 a.m.

18 juillet 2024 à 02:00 "Vinnie Falco via Boost" a écrit:

...

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:21 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost <

...
I think, this violates BSL and I find this unacceptable.

I agree, this is a problem (if true). It is not the intent to prevent people from improving the distribution. On the other hand if someone wants to package some malware into the zip file with a Boost release, I would prefer that we could stop them from using the mark. Very happy to hear ideas on how to adjust the balance between openness and safety.

This has been a problem for Firefox (ensuring no malware was distributed with their logo), and the mozilla fundation has worked very hard to find a solution. I'm not sure which exact state it is on now. I do remember that at the beginning it lead to the creation of icedove in debian (a rebranded version of firefox, because of the non-free trademarks on the logos and a too exclusive copyright), but then eventually came into firefox being available again (with mozilla owned branding) in debian due to some changes and/or agreement found. So, first, i'll look at how they handle it now, because it looks like they have found a pretty good balance. Regards, Julien

Andrey Semashev

8:14 a.m.

On July 18, 2024 3:01:02 AM Vinnie Falco wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:21 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...
I think, this violates BSL and I find this unacceptable.

I agree, this is a problem (if true). It is not the intent to prevent people from improving the distribution. On the other hand if someone wants to package some malware into the zip file with a Boost release, I would prefer that we could stop them from using the mark. Very happy to hear ideas on how to adjust the balance between openness and safety.

I think, safety is achieved by providing ways to verify integrity of the packages we distribute and educating users to use our official disribution channels along with package verification. Third party distributions should not concern us much unless those are malicious. In the latter case I doubt trademark protection will be effective anyway.

Vinnie Falco

4:51 p.m.

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

Andrey Semashev

10:18 p.m.

On 7/18/24 19:51, Vinnie Falco wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:21 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost mailto: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.

Not really separate. The terms of use of the new logo directly affect its acceptance.

...

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.

Even if I trust in your good intentions, you are not the owner of the logo and not the one who is to be asked whether one can use it. It is The C++ Alliance. While you currently may have the leverage to enforce your good intentions, should the need for such enforcement appear, unfortunately this may not always be the case. So, sentiments aside, we are discussing a legal document that may be used against your current statement, and in a way I don't think should be possible. Specifically, it may prevent redistribution of modified copies of 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:

Social stuff is not my concern.

...

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.

I don't disagree with the need for protection, but I don't agree that such protection should violate BSL. The license is also part of the brand, a much more important part than the logo, IMO.

...

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.

Each Boost release package contains the Boost logo, it's the boost.png in the root directory. That file is being referenced by every library docs that are packaged in the archive. Removing those references would be a very non-trivial task, and it becomes harder with every new documentation page. Alternatively, one could replace the image itself, but that would require one designing a replacement image. None of that should be required. I'm feeling strongly about it. Either the logo's terms of use should allow Boost usage to the full extent of BSL, including redistribution of derivative works, or the logo should not be part of Boost distribution (which would be rather awkward). Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one.

...

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.

Again, that is an additional restriction compared to BSL. I do not accept that. By this I mean, as a Boost library maintainer, I would have to remove the references to your new logo from my libraries to keep them under BSL. As a Boost user, I would have to reconsider how I'm consuming and packaging Boost. Stopping using official Boost releases with the logo would be one of the options. Needless to say, I'd be very unhappy, whichever hat I wear.

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

10:24 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one.

I'm confused. How does the current logo not have the same, or worse, re-use license problems in your oppinion? -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Andrey Semashev

10:34 p.m.

On 7/19/24 01:24, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one.

I'm confused. How does the current logo not have the same, or worse, re-use license problems in your oppinion?

I'm assuming, Boost is in its rights to distribute the current logo under BSL. Because that is what's being communicated to users on every page that says it's distributed under BSL. Let alone the official Boost packages themselves, which contain the license text and the logo. And it's been this way for decades. If this is not the case then we have a major legal issue and should obtain the license ASAP or remove the logo. In which case, my stance wrt. the current logo is pretty much the same as what I said about the proposed new logo.

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

10:40 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:34 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

On 7/19/24 01:24, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one.

I'm confused. How does the current logo not have the same, or worse, re-use license problems in your oppinion?

I'm assuming, Boost is in its rights to distribute the current logo under BSL. Because that is what's being communicated to users on every page that says it's distributed under BSL. Let alone the official Boost packages themselves, which contain the license text and the logo. And it's been this way for decades.

If this is not the case then we have a major legal issue and should obtain the license ASAP or remove the logo. In which case, my stance wrt. the current logo is pretty much the same as what I said about the proposed new logo.

We've had "a major legal issue" for 18 years with regards to the logo. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Andrey Semashev

10:41 p.m.

On 7/19/24 01:40, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:34 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
On 7/19/24 01:24, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one.

I'm confused. How does the current logo not have the same, or worse, re-use license problems in your oppinion?

I'm assuming, Boost is in its rights to distribute the current logo under BSL. Because that is what's being communicated to users on every page that says it's distributed under BSL. Let alone the official Boost packages themselves, which contain the license text and the logo. And it's been this way for decades.

If this is not the case then we have a major legal issue and should obtain the license ASAP or remove the logo. In which case, my stance wrt. the current logo is pretty much the same as what I said about the proposed new logo.

We've had "a major legal issue" for 18 years with regards to the logo.

Replacing one legal issue with another is not the solution.

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

10:45 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:41 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

On 7/19/24 01:40, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:34 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
On 7/19/24 01:24, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one.

I'm confused. How does the current logo not have the same, or worse, re-use license problems in your oppinion?

I'm assuming, Boost is in its rights to distribute the current logo under BSL. Because that is what's being communicated to users on every page that says it's distributed under BSL. Let alone the official Boost packages themselves, which contain the license text and the logo. And it's been this way for decades.

If this is not the case then we have a major legal issue and should obtain the license ASAP or remove the logo. In which case, my stance wrt. the current logo is pretty much the same as what I said about the proposed new logo.

We've had "a major legal issue" for 18 years with regards to the logo.

Replacing one legal issue with another is not the solution.

True. But we can resolve the issue more readily with a new logo. Because we don't have to fix 18 years worth of misuse with a new one. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Andrey Semashev

10:52 p.m.

On 7/19/24 01:45, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:41 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
On 7/19/24 01:40, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:34 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
On 7/19/24 01:24, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one.

I'm confused. How does the current logo not have the same, or worse, re-use license problems in your oppinion?

I'm assuming, Boost is in its rights to distribute the current logo under BSL. Because that is what's being communicated to users on every page that says it's distributed under BSL. Let alone the official Boost packages themselves, which contain the license text and the logo. And it's been this way for decades.

If this is not the case then we have a major legal issue and should obtain the license ASAP or remove the logo. In which case, my stance wrt. the current logo is pretty much the same as what I said about the proposed new logo.

We've had "a major legal issue" for 18 years with regards to the logo.

Replacing one legal issue with another is not the solution.

True. But we can resolve the issue more readily with a new logo. Because we don't have to fix 18 years worth of misuse with a new one.

I asked before whether there were attempts to fix the legal issue with the current logo, and got no reply. So I'm assuming one of the three: - There is no issue - Noone was aware of the issue - Noone bothered to fix the issue The 18 year delay has no bearing in either of these cases. So we could fix this as readily as with the new logo. Or at least try.

Vinnie Falco

11:02 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 3:45 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

...we can resolve the issue more readily with a new logo.

I'm not sure this is true. That is to say, I believe that any problems with the old logo preventing its use in the manner I am proposing for the new one can be easily solved. There are two issues here getting conflated: 1. Is the new logo superior to the old logo strictly in terms of visual style? 2. Is Boost helped with a protected image mark? The C++ Alliance could easily use its resources to build up the old logo by resolving the copyright, registering a trademark, and applying the usage policy. However I do not have the same enthusiasm for investing in the old logo as the new one has some advantages, at least to me: * The new logo is clean and memorable * The new logo is different from the old one, signifying a change * The new logo design is modern, while the old one is dated The proponents of the old logo consist largely of the contributors who were present when it was created. New people, especially those that have just joined the project, don't have the same emotional investment so the old logo doesn't really speak to them. It certainly doesn't speak to anyone outside the project. You could verify this. Simply ask Ruben, Marcelo, Krystian, Alan, Braden, or any of the younger people who have joined Boost lately. Or, you could ask reddit (which admittedly is a terrible idea so let's not read too much into this): https://www.reddit.com/r/logodesign/comments/1e62zhi/which_design_achieves_t... The issue of whether or not Boost benefits from having a legally registered image mark and an organization who uses its resources to ensure the mark is used in accordance with the project's values is a separate one. I think this issue has priority over which image we choose. If there is no perceived value in a protected mark, we can conclude the discussion. If the community agrees it wants to see what is possible with building a recognizable brand associated with the project's values, then the question of which logo to use becomes relevant. Thanks

Joel de Guzman

11:52 p.m.

On 7/19/24 7:02 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

The C++ Alliance could easily use its resources to build up the old logo by resolving the copyright, registering a trademark, and applying the usage policy. However I do not have the same enthusiasm for investing in the old logo as the new one has some advantages, at least to me:

* The new logo is clean and memorable * The new logo is different from the old one, signifying a change * The new logo design is modern, while the old one is dated

This is obviously subjective, but I would argue the other way. * The current logo is clean and memorable * The current logo design is modern, while the new one looks cheesy. The current logo could have been refined/updated to fix the technical issues Rene mentions without deviating too much from the design Regards, -- Joel de Guzman Cycfi Research, Inc.

Vinnie Falco

19 Jul 19 Jul

12:32 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:52 PM Joel de Guzman via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

The current logo could have been refined/updated to fix the technical issues Rene mentions without deviating too much from the design

Many things could have been. We created a new trademarked logo whose usage policy allows permissionless use in Boost-related contexts, with permission otherwise required to prevent misuse. The proposed policy is a draft and would obviously need a community effort to ensure its wording strikes the right balance. Or, the old logo could have the copyright resolved, receive a trademark, and have a policy applied, if someone steps forward to perform the work. Alternatively the community may decide the status quo is sufficient. I disagree with this assessment, and I believe Robert Ramey's proposal for the website review is applicable here. A review manager should volunteer and schedule a review to evaluate the submission of the logo, trademark, and its accompanying usage policy. I expect that if the work is not rejected, it would be conditional acceptance based on finalizing the usage policy. And there's no need to wait for the review to start revising the policy, that can happen right away by responding to this issue: https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues/263 May I get an endorsement for reviewing the new logo submission? Thanks

John Maddock

10:18 a.m.

...

Alternatively the community may decide the status quo is sufficient. I disagree with this assessment, and I believe Robert Ramey's proposal for the website review is applicable here. A review manager should volunteer and schedule a review to evaluate the submission of the logo, trademark, and its accompanying usage policy. I expect that if the work is not rejected, it would be conditional acceptance based on finalizing the usage policy. And there's no need to wait for the review to start revising the policy, that can happen right away by responding to this issue:

https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues/263

May I get an endorsement for reviewing the new logo submission?

If we're doing a review then for efficiencies sake, we should review website and logo as one (but with the understanding that it's not an "all or nothing" decision). If no one else steps up, then as someone who's not paid by Vinnie (or anyone else) to work on Boost, I would volunteer for that. Best, John.

Vinnie Falco

12:16 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:18 AM John Maddock via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

If we're doing a review then for efficiencies sake, we should review website and logo as one (but with the understanding that it's not an "all or nothing" decision).

I thought we already did the website review a while ago? That was Robert's idea Thanks

Robert Ramey

5:24 p.m.

On 7/19/24 5:16 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:18 AM John Maddock via Boost <

...

I thought we already did the website review a while ago? That was Robert's idea

LOL - I have lots of ideas. One was the formal review of submission of Boost Tools. This idea, like all the others never came to anything. I don't think I ever proposed a formal review of the website - though it's a good idea. I don't know that it's even relevant now given the our most authoritative body (for better or worse) has voted to accept the new website. Robert Ramey

Robert Ramey

5:26 p.m.

On 7/19/24 3:18 AM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:

...

...
Alternatively the community may decide the status quo is sufficient. I disagree with this assessment, and I believe Robert Ramey's proposal for the website review is applicable here. A review manager should volunteer and schedule a review to evaluate the submission of the logo, trademark, and its accompanying usage policy. I expect that if the work is not rejected, it would be conditional acceptance based on finalizing the usage policy. And there's no need to wait for the review to start revising the policy, that can happen right away by responding to this issue:

https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues/263

May I get an endorsement for reviewing the new logo submission?

If we're doing a review then for efficiencies sake, we should review website and logo as one (but with the understanding that it's not an "all or nothing" decision).

If no one else steps up, then as someone who's not paid by Vinnie (or anyone else) to work on Boost, I would volunteer for that.

Amazing. You always step up for a critical task regardless of how unsexy it is. I nominate you for the "Boost/C++ hall of heroes" along with David Abrahams and Beman Dawes. Robert Ramey

...

Best, John.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Vinnie Falco

5:57 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:18 AM John Maddock via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

If we're doing a review then for efficiencies sake, we should review website and logo as one (but with the understanding that it's not an "all or nothing" decision).

A review of the website is possible, although I do like the current model where stakeholders provide a steady supply of valid reasons why the site is not ready to go live. Those reasons can be seen in the open issues of the website-v2 and website-v2-docs repositories in boostorg. A review which does not reject the website will likely be conditional acceptance based on some criteria which will unsurprisingly resemble said list of open issues. We still have a few issues that in my opinion are holding back the site. I just noticed that we are not correctly tracking the "in progress release notes" so this would be a blocker as we are currently in the middle of a release cycle. The Alliance is providing the team which includes front-end designers and developers, a back-end developer, and a technical documentation writer. Stakeholders (i.e. mailing list participants) can just open an issue and it will go into the work pipeline. The nature of our proposed website contribution is a process with ongoing support and community involvement, as there are many more years of development ahead of us. To ensure that stakeholders can find what they need and get involved in the development workflow I have created two issue labels: "Appearance?" is a label applied to any issue which needs additional information to resolve an aesthetic issue. A made-up example might be "do we want sharp corners or rounded corners for the box containing the download hash?" Anyone interested in providing their thoughts on questions of appearance can view all open issues and then participate: https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3... "Functionality?" is the label applied to any issue which needs additional information to determine how something should work, especially if it is a feature which duplicates functionality from the old website. People with opinions or desires of changes can browse the open issues and weigh in: https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3... For the aforementioned review, I would prefer a focus on only the logo and policy, and it would be nice if it was timely as I would like to use this for CppCon 2024. T-shirts and brochures must be designed and constructed then delivered to the conference storage ahead of time. Here's a teaser: [image: Boost-T-Shrt.jpg] Thanks

Christopher Kormanyos

7:49 p.m.

...

image: Boost-T-Shrt.jpg Here's a teaser:

I luv it. But i'm somewhat disappointedto not see any bolt cutters. Keep going everyone of Boost! We need hats, not trucker but dad hat Kind regards, Chris On Friday, July 19, 2024 at 07:58:12 PM GMT+2, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:18 AM John Maddock via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

If we're doing a review then for efficiencies sake, we should review website and logo as one (but with the understanding that it's not an "all or nothing" decision).

Vinnie Falco

7:57 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:49 PM Christopher Kormanyos wrote:

...

We need hats, not trucker but dad hat

I agree, and "Make Boost Great Again" might be a hard sell :) Thanks

Joel de Guzman

18 Jul 18 Jul

11:33 p.m.

On 7/19/24 6:40 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:34 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
Or just reject the new logo along with its terms of use and stick with the current one. I'm confused. How does the current logo not have the same, or worse, re-use license problems in your oppinion? I'm assuming, Boost is in its rights to distribute the current logo under BSL. Because that is what's being communicated to users on every

On 7/19/24 01:24, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote: page that says it's distributed under BSL. Let alone the official Boost packages themselves, which contain the license text and the logo. And it's been this way for decades.

If this is not the case then we have a major legal issue and should obtain the license ASAP or remove the logo. In which case, my stance wrt. the current logo is pretty much the same as what I said about the proposed new logo. We've had "a major legal issue" for 18 years with regards to the logo.

Has anyone contacted Zoltan Juhasz regarding this? Regards, -- Joel de Guzman Cycfi Research, Inc.

Vinnie Falco

11:41 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:34 PM Joel de Guzman via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

Has anyone contacted Zoltan Juhasz regarding this?

This is not necessary. As there has not been an actual problem for 18 years, it is increasingly unlikely for said problem to ever occur. The spontaneous fervor to "fix the copyright issues" is oddly coincidental with my proposal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Andrey Semashev

11:46 p.m.

On 7/19/24 02:41, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:34 PM Joel de Guzman via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...
Has anyone contacted Zoltan Juhasz regarding this?

This is not necessary. As there has not been an actual problem for 18 years, it is increasingly unlikely for said problem to ever occur.

Since the new logo is apparently supposed to "fix" the legal issue, I disagree that this is not necessary.

Vinnie Falco

11:54 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:46 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

Since the new logo is apparently supposed to "fix" the legal issue, I disagree that this is not necessary.

I never said the new logo fixes any legal issue. Thanks

Joel de Guzman

19 Jul 19 Jul

12:08 a.m.

On 7/19/24 7:46 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

On 7/19/24 02:41, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:34 PM Joel de Guzman via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...
Has anyone contacted Zoltan Juhasz regarding this? This is not necessary. As there has not been an actual problem for 18 years, it is increasingly unlikely for said problem to ever occur. Since the new logo is apparently supposed to "fix" the legal issue, I disagree that this is not necessary. Whether or not it is indeed a legal issue, IDK. I am not a lawyer.

But I know Zoltan, and I can't imagine that he would not be cooperative to what ever needs to be done to resolve this legal issue. I think it's just a matter of formalization. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman Cycfi Research, Inc.

Ion Gaztañaga

18 Jul 18 Jul

10:34 p.m.

El 19/07/2024 a las 0:18, Andrey Semashev via Boost escribió:

...

Again, that is an additional restriction compared to BSL. I do not accept that. By this I mean, as a Boost library maintainer, I would have to remove the references to your new logo from my libraries to keep them under BSL. As a Boost user, I would have to reconsider how I'm consuming and packaging Boost. Stopping using official Boost releases with the logo would be one of the options. Needless to say, I'd be very unhappy, whichever hat I wear.

I really don't understand how an image can be right under BSL. BSL only speaks about software: "...use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software..." and certainly the logo is not software. It seems to me that we need a different license for the logo, but sadly I'm not an expert on that. Maybe we should take inspiration from other software projects which have a logo. E.g. POCO uses BSL for software but "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International" for the logo. Best, Ion

Andrey Semashev

10:39 p.m.

On 7/19/24 01:34, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

...

El 19/07/2024 a las 0:18, Andrey Semashev via Boost escribió:

...
Again, that is an additional restriction compared to BSL. I do not accept that. By this I mean, as a Boost library maintainer, I would have to remove the references to your new logo from my libraries to keep them under BSL. As a Boost user, I would have to reconsider how I'm consuming and packaging Boost. Stopping using official Boost releases with the logo would be one of the options. Needless to say, I'd be very unhappy, whichever hat I wear.

I really don't understand how an image can be right under BSL. BSL only speaks about software:

"...use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software..."

and certainly the logo is not software.

BSL also covers documentation, which is part of the "Software": <quote> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following: </quote> The logo is being presented as part of the documentation.

Ion Gaztañaga

19 Jul 19 Jul

10:02 a.m.

El 19/07/2024 a las 0:39, Andrey Semashev via Boost escribió:

...

The logo is being presented as part of the documentation.

I find this highly debatable, because the logo is not part of the documentation of any library or website, AFAIK, but an independent asset. In any case, if the image itself is under BSL license (which allows any modification and use in virtually any context), you need a trademark policy so that "confusingly similar" derivative logos can't confuse consumers or harm Boost. I think projects like Apache have done similar things. Best, Ion

Andrey Semashev

11:20 a.m.

On 7/19/24 13:02, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

...

El 19/07/2024 a las 0:39, Andrey Semashev via Boost escribió:

...
The logo is being presented as part of the documentation.

I find this highly debatable, because the logo is not part of the documentation of any library or website, AFAIK, but an independent asset.

It is linked to by every page in the library docs (at least, for BoostBook/QuickBook based docs) and is visible when reading the docs (including offline). As far as I'm concerned, it is part of the documentation.

Vinnie Falco

18 Jul 18 Jul

10:45 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 3:18 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

...
This is a separate conversation from the choice of logo image, and one worth having.

Not really separate. The terms of use of the new logo directly affect its acceptance.

To clarify, the discussion referenced above, is whether there is value in distinguishing a Boost release as an official communication from the project, compared to something that a third party put together as a package. This requires the ability to prevent misleading use. Which logo we choose to do this, does not change the discussion (other than the obvious necessity that going with the old logo will first need resolution of the copyright issues). I like official communications, and I think a cohesive visual language for those communications enhances the reputation of the project by signaling care regarding when presenting its volunteers' work. I respect that you, Andrey, may not personally feel that appearance matters, but I think it does and I suspect other people do too. At the same time I also like permissive licenses so I wouldn't want to lose that or have restrictions placed on my work which prevent its use. You are obviously smart; do you have any ideas which reach a balance allowing use of the libraries without restriction while also providing the means to discourage usage which harms the libraries? Thanks

Andrey Semashev

11:18 p.m.

On 7/19/24 01:45, Vinnie Falco wrote:

...

do you have any ideas which reach a balance allowing use of the libraries without restriction while also providing the means to discourage usage which harms the libraries?

Change the terms of use to only apply to marketing/promotional/social uses of the brand and logo. Explicitly state that the logo that is being distributed as part of Boost documentation (whether online or in a package) is distributed under BSL. Any additional restrictions or requirements in the TOU do not apply to this use of the logo.

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

2:21 a.m.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:39 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

2. No change

(1) adopt the proposed new logo. Our use of the current logo is technically not legal. Zoltan holds the copyright. And we, the community or Steering Committee or Foundation, did not get an appropriate license to use it or modify it. The new logo solves that problem. Our current logo would be difficult to adapt to the new web site. And over time has been rather difficult to use because of its translucency. Even when I incorporated the logo in the current website design it was difficult to make it work because of that. I ended up masking the background and adding shadows to get enough contrast to use it. But I wasn't going to "rock the boat" at that time. The new logo solves that problem. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Joel de Guzman

2:43 a.m.

On 7/18/24 10:21 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

...

Our use of the current logo is technically not legal. Zoltan holds the copyright. And we, the community or Steering Committee or Foundation, did not get an appropriate license to use it or modify it. The new logo solves that problem.

This, IMO, is easy to fix. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman Cycfi Research, Inc.

Andrey Semashev

8:30 a.m.

On July 18, 2024 5:21:35 AM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

...

Our use of the current logo is technically not legal. Zoltan holds the copyright. And we, the community or Steering Committee or Foundation, did not get an appropriate license to use it or modify it.

Were there any attempts to solve the legal issues (assuming they exist)? I would guess, one would try to solve this before spending money on the new logo.

Joaquin M López Muñoz

7:46 a.m.

El 17/07/2024 a las 22:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost escribió:

...

Thanks. Upon reviewing my initial post I think I could have communicated more clearly. Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

2. No change

(1)The new logo legal status is more clear. Design-wise, it integrates better with the new website. Joaquín M López Muñoz

John Maddock

8:54 a.m.

...

Thanks. Upon reviewing my initial post I think I could have communicated more clearly. Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

Logo's like websites are touch to make choices on because so much is down to aesthetics, but I rather liked the new design when I first saw it, and seen in the broader context of the proposed new website I believe it makes sense to adopt it (though largely I'm deferring to Rene here for it's technical merits). If as suggested we can find a "Mozilla like" compromise on usage to maintain a good balance between open-source ethos and brand protection that would be better still (this actually applies to the old logo as well, which I don't *think* was ever BSL - it's not actually clear what it is to be honest from a legal point of view). Robert: I do take your point that fiddling with branding is often a sign of business failure, not least when products randomly begin changing names, I don't believe that's what we have here, more of an evolution and/or reboot within the broader context of a new website. Best, John.

Ion Gaztañaga

9:21 a.m.

El 17/07/2024 a las 22:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost escribió:

...

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...
FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community inclusive process with many submissions and designs.

Thanks. Upon reviewing my initial post I think I could have communicated more clearly. Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

2. No change

Hi, I like the new logo. The capital "B" makes easier to remember that it's about Boost. I have no problem of being trademarked if the usage is reasonable, just like isocpp and others are doing: "Foundation name and C++ logo" in https://isocpp.org/home/terms-of-use Is the new logo available in different formats/resolutions (e.g in github like isocpp does)? I would suggest putting several versions of it in a github repo under boostorg. The readme of that github should contain enough explanations to know how can be used. Best, Ion

Vinnie Falco

9:23 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 2:21 AM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

Is the new logo available in different formats/resolutions (e.g in github like isocpp does)? I would suggest putting several versions of it in a github repo under boostorg. The readme of that github should contain enough explanations to know how can be used.

Christopher Kormanyos

9:46 a.m.

...

1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the trademark

2. No change

I like the new logo and appreciate the forward evolution to use it. Christopher On Thursday, July 18, 2024 at 11:23:57 AM GMT+2, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 2:21 AM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

Is the new logo available in different formats/resolutions (e.g in github like isocpp does)? I would suggest putting several versions of it in a github repo under boostorg. The readme of that github should contain enough explanations to know how can be used.

Well, like everything, that's a work in progress :) I was just looking at the policy and I see that the image has the wrong transparency. This will all get sorted of course (just ask Andrey what he thinks about all of his issues that we knocked out). Thanks _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Matt Borland

1:33 p.m.

...

...
1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the

...

...
trademark

...

...
2. No change

I like the new logo with the redesigned website. I think applying the existing logo onto the new website would not look as good. I can not think of a better time to swap out the logos than in combination with the website redesign. Matt

Hans Dembinski

1:18 p.m.

...

On 17. Jul 2024, at 20:59, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf

Please add Boost.Histogram to the "Science" block or tell me why it is left out. Thanks, Hans

Vinnie Falco

2:40 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 6:18 AM Hans Dembinski wrote:

...

Please add Boost.Histogram to the "Science" block or tell me why it is left out.

Yes! I can do that. Do note that this is still a work in progress (some panels are incomplete and there is still editing to do). Do you have any thoughts on proposed text? How about "Boost.Histogram is histoGREAT!" Thanks

Richard

3:13 p.m.

In article , Vinnie Falco via Boost writes:

...

The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use.

My first thought on seeing the new logo: It looks like the Nazi SS lightning bolt I wonder how many other people will have that first impression. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline The Terminals Wiki http://terminals-wiki.org The Computer Graphics Museum http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com

John Maddock

4:08 p.m.

On 18/07/2024 16:13, Richard via Boost wrote:

...

In article , Vinnie Falco via Boost writes:

...
The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use. My first thought on seeing the new logo:

It looks like the Nazi SS lightning bolt

I wonder how many other people will have that first impression.

Not me, but that would be very unfortunate indeed. Now that you've planted that seed in my head I can sort of see what you mean (I had to look up the Nazi symbol first though!), I would welcome other thoughts on the subject. Best, John.

Ion Gaztañaga

8:23 p.m.

El 18/07/2024 a las 17:13, Richard via Boost escribió:

...

In article , Vinnie Falco via Boost writes:

...
The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use.

My first thought on seeing the new logo:

It looks like the Nazi SS lightning bolt

I wonder how many other people will have that first impression.

Just type "logo with lightning" in your search engine and you'll find a lot designs similar to the new proposed logo. So certainly not many people will get that impression. Ion

Andrey Semashev

10:23 p.m.

On 7/18/24 23:23, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

...

El 18/07/2024 a las 17:13, Richard via Boost escribió:

...
In article , Vinnie Falco via Boost writes:

...
The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use.

My first thought on seeing the new logo:

It looks like the Nazi SS lightning bolt

I wonder how many other people will have that first impression.

Just type "logo with lightning" in your search engine and you'll find a lot designs similar to the new proposed logo. So certainly not many people will get that impression.

Not many of these logos resemble the nazi SS font, though. I do feel like the new logo's resemblance is too close for comfort, though. I'm sure it's an unfortunate coincidence, but it is a negative point nonetheless.

Dave Abrahams

9 Aug 9 Aug

10:17 p.m.

...

On Jul 18, 2024, at 1:23 PM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

El 18/07/2024 a las 17:13, Richard via Boost escribió:

...
In article , Vinnie Falco via Boost writes:

...
The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use. My first thought on seeing the new logo: It looks like the Nazi SS lightning bolt I wonder how many other people will have that first impression.

Just type "logo with lightning" in your search engine and you'll find a lot designs similar to the new proposed logo. So certainly not many people will get that impression.

I don't think things have changed that much since 2004 when I made the same mistake with the a Boost logo design (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/11/76316.php). It was a good idea to avoid this association then and it remains so 20 years later. Cheers, Dave

Phil Endecott

19 Jul 19 Jul

4:03 p.m.

Vinnie Falco wrote:

...

The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use. I am hoping this will spark the necessary discussion.

Visually I think it's a decent logo. We would want to avoid the "Debian Iceweasel" issue. I've not tried to understand whether this is a problem with the terms of use. To me, the logo choice looks like a proxy for the more fundamental question, "do we like Vinnie Falco and the C++ Alliance and the work they are doing?". Less than a month ago, Kristen Shaker told us that "there is no viable path forward for further coordination between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation". I have not seen any announcement reversing that decision. I guess that there has been some private discussion and that Vinnie is no longer persona non grata - am I right? Regards, Phil.

Peter Dimov

4:24 p.m.

Phil Endecott wrote:

...

To me, the logo choice looks like a proxy for the more fundamental question, "do we like Vinnie Falco and the C++ Alliance and the work they are doing?".

Less than a month ago, Kristen Shaker told us that "there is no viable path forward for further coordination between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation". I have not seen any announcement reversing that decision.

We can still answer the above question regardless of what the Boost Foundation says. And independently of that, we can also decide on a logo on merits, regardless of the more fundamental question.

John Maddock

4:33 p.m.

On 19/07/2024 17:24, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

Phil Endecott wrote:

...
To me, the logo choice looks like a proxy for the more fundamental question, "do we like Vinnie Falco and the C++ Alliance and the work they are doing?".

Less than a month ago, Kristen Shaker told us that "there is no viable path forward for further coordination between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation". I have not seen any announcement reversing that decision. We can still answer the above question regardless of what the Boost Foundation says.

And independently of that, we can also decide on a logo on merits, regardless of the more fundamental question.

+1.

Vinnie Falco

4:58 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 9:03 AM Phil Endecott via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

"do we like Vinnie Falco and the C++ Alliance and the work they are doing?".

I've had thoughts about this and every bone in my body is screaming to "take it to the mailing list." However, Kristen and David asked that I work with them through private channels first. And John Maddock has signaled a preference for issues to be resolved off-list as well. There is a question which I have, that desperately needs to be answered. Instead of asking on the list I have asked the Foundation in private, and they indicated that the question is worth a response, and that a response is forthcoming. I believe that the Foundation will follow through on this, and I understand that this may take more time. Thanks

Klemens Morgenstern

10:50 p.m.

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 12:03 AM Phil Endecott via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

Vinnie Falco wrote:

...
The new Boost logo was developed by the Alliance, and a community consensus is needed if we are to fully move forward with its use. I am hoping this will spark the necessary discussion.

Visually I think it's a decent logo.

We would want to avoid the "Debian Iceweasel" issue. I've not tried to understand whether this is a problem with the terms of use.

To me, the logo choice looks like a proxy for the more fundamental question, "do we like Vinnie Falco and the C++ Alliance and the work they are doing?".

Less than a month ago, Kristen Shaker told us that "there is no viable path forward for further coordination between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation". I have not seen any announcement reversing that decision. I guess that there has been some private discussion and that Vinnie is no longer persona non grata - am I right?

He has never been. The Boost Foundation does not own boost - or anything related to boost, apparently. I think everyone who frequents the mailing lists should be able to make up their own mind about what the Booat Foundation and what the C++ alliance did for Boost.

...

Regards, Phil.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Age (days ago)

120

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

63 comments

18 participants

participants (18)

Andrey Semashev
Christopher Kormanyos
Dave Abrahams
Hans Dembinski
Ion Gaztañaga
Joaquin M López Muñoz
Joel de Guzman
John Maddock
Julien Blanc
Klemens Morgenstern
Matt Borland
Peter Dimov
Phil Endecott
Pranam Lashkari
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
Richard
Robert Ramey
Vinnie Falco