Template talk:User OS:Ubuntu

message: Just a suggestion, but what about changing the colour of the debian logo, tilting it or adding something else (like a "derived from" text) to differentiate it? At first glance the debian logo is a bit misleading. --Outlyer 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: using the debian logo is inaccurate. this is approximately equivalent to using the red hat logo for a mandriva userbox. --Ptkfgs 07:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. The logo should be changed to something abstract -- pehaps the letter "U". Using the Debian logo here is simply incorrect. --mako 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done, Mako.--Mac Lover 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debian logo.

message: If we can't use the Ubuntu logo, is  incorrectly tagged as GPL? -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t17:33z
:That file seems to be deleted. So I suppose the answer was yes -- but it doesn't really matter much now anyway. -- mako (talk•contribs) 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that all content on Wikipedia except the Wikimedia foundation's project's logos can be used commercially according to the GFDL, and Ubuntu doesn't allow that with copies according to . While your image isn't a copy, if it's close enough to serve as an obvious replacement then I think it infringes. If it's not an obvious enough replacement then we shouldn't use it to indicate Ubuntu. We have no fair use defense since it's used in the user namespace. If you disagree please email the foundation's legal council. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-09t09:35z
I've created a new version of the logo, primarily because Steve's sadly wasn't in the SVG format, which is preferable for this kind of work. My non-copyvio rationale are as follows:
*Four "children" are present, as opposed to Canonical's three.
*Although the heads of the "children" are in a position more similar to Canonical's than in Steve's version, they do intersect, as opposed to Canonical's version, in which the heads are separate from the body/arms.
*Certain colors are different than in Canonical's version. Although in a more complex work this may be insignificant, in a basic logo such as this, a large portion of the data is the coloration.
*The orientation of the "children" is different, as is the length of their arms and the size of their heads in proportion to these. The "children" are also separated by 90º, which is a result of the presence of the extra "child", as opposed to the apparently approximate 120º in Canonical's logo.
I believe that these differences adequately disqualify the logo from being a copyright violation of Canonical's. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ubuntu logo.

message: I've created an alternative version of this template, which uses the generic Linux penguin. Feel free to use, modify, etc... -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative logos

message: ::Remember that all content on Wikipedia except the Wikimedia foundation's project's logos can be used commercially according to the GFDL, and Ubuntu doesn't allow that with copies according to . While your image isn't a copy, if it's close enough to serve as an obvious replacement then I think it infringes. If it's not an obvious enough replacement then we shouldn't use it to indicate Ubuntu. We have no fair use defense since it's used in the user namespace. If you disagree please email the foundation's legal council. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-09t09:35z
I've created a new version of the logo, primarily because Steve's sadly wasn't in the SVG format, which is preferable for this kind of work. My non-copyvio rationale are as follows:
*Four "children" are present, as opposed to Canonical's three.
*Although the heads of the "children" are in a position more similar to Canonical's than in Steve's version, they do intersect, as opposed to Canonical's version, in which the heads are separate from the body/arms.
*Certain colors are different than in Canonical's version. Although in a more complex work this may be insignificant, in a basic logo such as this, a large portion of the data is the coloration.
*The orientation of the "children" is different, as is the length of their arms and the size of their heads in proportion to these. The "children" are also separated by 90º, which is a result of the presence of the extra "child", as opposed to the apparently approximate 120º in Canonical's logo.
I believe that these differences adequately disqualify the logo from being a copyright violation of Canonical's. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the alternative logo is not a copyright violation

message: This template (used as a userbox) has lost its text, could it be restored please?: Noyster  (talk),  08:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost text