
GPL Licenses Logos Now Available - ekianjo
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/license-logos.html
======
uldus
$ curl -I
[http://www.gnu.org/graphics/gplv3-127x51.png|](http://www.gnu.org/graphics/gplv3-127x51.png|)
grep Last

Last-Modified: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:58:51 GMT

------
davexunit
I'm confused. "Now Available"? I've seen these license logos on things for
years now.

~~~
thebouv
Updated: $Date: 2014/04/12 12:39:46 $

So yeah, not a new announcement. Maybe just new to the OP and they got excited
enough to post it up here? :)

~~~
Arkanosis
I thought it was strange to read “other sizes”, “bigger”, “even bigger” in
2015 when you have SVG…

The alternative logos are in SVG, so that's great.

~~~
runholm
They are all available as SVG. There are links right above the images. "ctrl-f
SVG"

------
Foomandoonian
New when? The 90s? I'd rather just use plain text.

------
icefox
Too bad they are only for the GPL3 family of licenses. If I choose GPL license
for a project it is always a GPL2 family.

~~~
davexunit
GPLv3 gives much more legal definition to the spirit of the GPL and free
software, but some people seem to like the loopholes in GPLv2. Also, the GPLv3
is _much_ better about what happens when the license is violated. GPLv2 is
very strict about license termination. GPLv3 is just better in all regards.

~~~
wyldfire
Can we backport some of those features to GPLv2? GNU may not have an interest
in that, but presumably we don't need GNU's permission to create a "GPL2.5"
like license?

~~~
baghira
We really don't need yet another license. What's more, all those changes would
probably result in a new license that is again incompatible with GPLv2. The
fact is that the "anti-tivoization" clause is, for most free software
projects, a smaller problem (if a problem at all) compared to the simple fact
that the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2. I fear there is simply no way
of creating a "new" GPL license that is compatible with the GPLv2, short of
adding an exception like MPLv2 does.

------
tptacek
Why is "v3" the biggest part of the logo?

~~~
jordigh
I guess the FSF is still trying to emphasise that there's a "new" version of
the GPL that people should be using. It's relatively rare to see new projects
use GPLv2, but there's still quite a few who are unable or unwilling to go to
v3. Witness people elsewhere in this thread saying how they want to keep using
v2.

------
forrestthewoods
Programmers should not be given approval authority over logo design. Urgh.

------
ucaetano
"These logos are immediately recognizable, and will assure your users that
their freedom is being protected."

Kinda wishful thinking, isn't it?

~~~
bcg1
Just depends on who your users are, and if they care about free software.

But, in general, yes... it is probably wishful thinking. But just because the
future looks dismal doesn't mean that you don't give it your best shot.

~~~
sdegutis
EDIT: never mind, I'm an idiot :)

~~~
andreasvc
There's always something worse happenning somewhere. That's not a reason not
to care about things like this.

~~~
sdegutis
EDIT: never mind, I'm an idiot :)

~~~
vezzy-fnord
You really think there's more people concerned over proprietary software than
ISIS? It seems your gauging of public outrage is disproportionate to real
levels of public outrage. In any event, it's a fallacy of relative privation.

------
lambada
What license are these logos being released under? The alternative set
specifically states CC-BY 3.0... but the main set, as far as I can tell only
have the implied licence granted by being allowed to use them to advertise the
license.

~~~
chrisBob
That was my first question. The attribution requirement for the alternative
logos is quite a drag. I really wouldn't bother with a logo that requires
credit like that.

~~~
jessaustin
It might not be license-compliant, but if I were to ever use these logos, I
would claim to satisfy the attribution requirement through comments in the
page source. After all if you write a CLI tool that links GPL stuff you don't
have to mess up your output with license crap. Those who want to know will
read the source.

~~~
marcosdumay
Isn't attribution solved by linking at their page with the explanation of the
logos?

~~~
jessaustin
It seems to make more sense for the logo itself to link to the explanation of
the actual license. (e.g.
[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)
) I agree with parent posts that it is a confusing distraction to have some
other link also present on the page. If GNU wanted to put such links on their
license pages, they could. Now they just have a logo and a link to TFA.

------
yongjik
My first thought was "what is that thing that looks like a B with a wing, is
that a logo for FSF?"

If I were them, I'd re-draw the logos. It looks like "v3" only if you already
know it means v3.

~~~
strictnein
My thoughts exactly. I had a hard time figuring out what they said and I knew
what they said.

------
mark_l_watson
Did these logos change? The first group look the same as before.

------
brianwillis
Logos aren't mindless fluff or artsy wallpaper that you slap on a project
before sending it out the door. They're often the first impression someone
gets of your work, and using a thoughtless design says nothing good about what
you value.

It doesn't have to be this way. There are free software projects out there
that have beautiful, thoughtful, iconic logos. Firefox is the first that comes
to mind. The Linux penguin (while a bit odd) has grown on me too.

------
tjr
I wish that the GFDL logo matched the others. I guess a spiffy "1.3" wouldn't
look as nice as just "3"?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
GFDL isn't GPL-compatible, though, and is meant for a quite different purpose.
It's fitting, then, that its logo is visually distinct.

------
romanlevin
All the logos on this page that include the "free software" part are visually
ruined by it.

~~~
jes5199
"ruined" is a pretty strong word. The logos are rather ugly anyway.

------
legulere
Is there also some GPL-Free logo?

~~~
jordigh
If you really dislike the GPL, I guess maybe copyfree.org might have a logo
for you, a circled F.

~~~
sbuk
Why hate? Why can't someone merely disagree with the premise of the GPL and
prefer not to use software that is V3 encumbered? The use of emotive language
by the FSF and other GNU exponents is actually very off putting. It comes
across as very dogmatic. YMMV.

~~~
jordigh
"Encumbered" sounds just as dogmatic to me. It is very difficult to use
absolutely neutral language. The kind of responses that the GPL elicits from
some detractors is frequently akin to hatred.

But point taken, I've changed it to "dislike" so that nobody is accused of
hatred.

------
rvalue
Oh shit!

My freedom is now protected by icons, ugly as fuck

