Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add branding guidelines and update the license file #905

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Add branding guidelines and update the license file #905

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

Panquesito7
Copy link
Member

Things added/changed:

  • Add branding guidelines and update the license file.

@Panquesito7 Panquesito7 added enhancement discussion Use this label for community discussions about changes/features/.. labels Nov 8, 2021
@amacado amacado changed the base branch from master to develop November 8, 2021 10:44
Copy link
Member

@amacado amacado left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we should introduce a chapter about the license of the brand icons? So the usage of the brand icons is not covered by this license and the user has to check the brand usage limitations?

LICENSE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
LICENSE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
| :heavy_check_mark: Use our logos to link to Devicon | :x: Use our logos for your own application’s icon |
| :heavy_check_mark: Use our logos in a blog post or news article about Devicon | :x: Create a modified versions of our logos |
| :heavy_check_mark: Use the right format for your project to ensure proper resolution | :x: Change the current original provided sizes |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in my opinion, this contradicts

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

https://github.com/devicons/devicon/pull/905/files?short_path=48de610#diff-4673a3aba01813b595de187a7a6e9e63a3491d55821606fecd9f13a10c188a1dR8

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in my opinion, this contradicts

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

https://github.com/devicons/devicon/pull/905/files?short_path=48de610#diff-4673a3aba01813b595de187a7a6e9e63a3491d55821606fecd9f13a10c188a1dR8

Should we change to this license, then? https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

**Original Wordmark**

---
<a href="https://github.com/raw/devicons/devicon/master/icons/devicon/devicon-original-wordmark.svg">
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just noticed that our wordmark logo might need a redesign.. On white background it's impossible to see the wordmark.

image

Copy link
Member Author

@Panquesito7 Panquesito7 Nov 8, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just noticed that our wordmark logo might need a redesign.. On white background it's impossible to see the wordmark.

Maybe we should do that in another PR, but yes, you're right. 😄

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could change the original version;s text to the plain version's text. Change the white color to green.

@maltejur
Copy link
Contributor

maltejur commented Nov 8, 2021

Why should the license be changed from MIT?

Also a general question. What does the license apply to? Because I doubt we can just re-license other peoples logos.

@Thomas-Boi
Copy link
Member

@maltejur

Why should the license be changed from MIT?

Also a general question. What does the license apply to? Because I doubt we can just re-license other peoples logos.

Originally, this is for our Devicon icon (like the repo logo) only. However, I think we are adding an extra section in it to clarify the branding rules regarding other icons.

Copy link
Member

@Thomas-Boi Thomas-Boi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall, I'm satisfied with the guidelines. However, as amacado pointed out, there's some contradiction regarding modifying our icon.

Also, I think we should add a disclaimer at the top that the guidelines and the license only applies to OUR logo, nothing else.

@Panquesito7
Copy link
Member Author

Overall, I'm satisfied with the guidelines. However, as amacado pointed out, there's some contradiction regarding modifying our icon.

Also, I think we should add a disclaimer at the top that the guidelines and the license only applies to OUR logo, nothing else.

Could you please verify again? I've made some changes.


## 📝 License

All of our branding assets are licensed under the [CC BY-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) license.\
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I notice that here, we are Creative Commons license. However, in LICENSE.md, we are using the MIT one.

For me, I'm cool with people modifying some parts of the icon (like changing its color to match their site) but not changing it completely. Perhaps we should just leave it under CC license and clarify the rest in the branching_guidelines.md?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I notice that here, we are Creative Commons license. However, in LICENSE.md, we are using the MIT one.

For me, I'm cool with people modifying some parts of the icon (like changing its color to match their site) but not changing it completely. Perhaps we should just leave it under CC license and clarify the rest in the branching_guidelines.md?

I specified that we're using MIT for code and everything else (except that the logos of each trademark respectively have their license, so this won't apply), but CC BY-ND 4.0 for our icons, our logo. If I understand well, you want to convert the license to be totally CC BY-ND 4.0, which is something I don't think it's a good idea. 😅

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry for the late reply. If I understand correctly:

  • The icons from the other companies in this repo are listed under MIT license AND still have to adhere to the company's logo usage. This means they can change at most the colors of the font icon but not the SVGs themselves.
  • Our logo is under CC, which allows people to modify it. However, the modification is limited by our branding_guidelines.md

Am I understand this correctly? I'm sorry if I misunderstand some stuff; licenses are not my strongest suits 😅

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. Good point, maybe we should mention that all logos fall under their respective licenses and terms. If no license/terms are found, they are licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0.
  2. The current license shouldn't allow modifying our logos (it is BY-ND 4.0 now). So we have two options:
  • Remove our customized restrictions (unless they just clarify what you can do and can't do with our current license OR if it has the same restrictions/permissions).
  • Remove the license and keep our customized guidelines/restrictions.

@devicons/supporter, @devicons/maintainer, what do you think we should do? I'm not sure if we can keep both options. 😅

LICENSE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Thomas-Boi
Copy link
Member

The whole licensing issue is very complex. I just reread everything and I want to clarify our goals:

  1. The icons (not SVGs) of each company needs to adhere to that company's licensing standards. That being said, the user can also change the icon's color so it fits their website's color scheme. They can also scale the icon as long as it retains the original shape.
  2. The icons of Devicon fits with above rule. The only thing people can change is the color and scale.

With those goals in mind, what license fits the project the best? MIT has served us well so far and I think it might be easier just leaving it as is. MIT can also be applied to our icon as well and we can just remove the branding_guidelines.md since it's extraneous.

What do you guys think? @amacado @Panquesito7

@Panquesito7
Copy link
Member Author

The whole licensing issue is very complex. I just reread everything and I want to clarify our goals:

  1. The icons (not SVGs) of each company need to adhere to that company's licensing standards. That being said, the user can also change the icon's color so it fits their website's color scheme. They can also scale the icon as long as it retains the original shape.
  2. The icons of Devicon fit with the above rule. The only thing people can change is the color and scale.

With those goals in mind, what license fits the project the best? MIT has served us well so far and I think it might be easier just leaving it as is. MIT can also be applied to our icon as well and we can just remove the branding_guidelines.md since it's extraneous.

What do you guys think? @amacado @Panquesito7

I would go with CC BY-SA 4.0 for our icons and MIT for the code. We can also mention if no license is found or guidelines for any icon, they will fall under MIT. MIT is a good license, but for media stuff, CC is better, IMO.

This won't require any guidelines or stuff like that, just normal mention and clarification about it. What do you think? 🙂

@Thomas-Boi
Copy link
Member

In that case @Panquesito7 let's go with that. I think we should combine everything in one document if possible as well. @amacado what do you think?

@Thomas-Boi
Copy link
Member

@Panquesito7 do we need to do anything for this PR?

@Panquesito7
Copy link
Member Author

Panquesito7 commented Jan 26, 2022

@Panquesito7 do we need to do anything for this PR?

I'll update this PR hopefully this or next week. Thanks for the reminder. 🙂

Copy link
Member

@Thomas-Boi Thomas-Boi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just need the changes that we discussed and it's all good

@Thomas-Boi
Copy link
Member

Thomas-Boi commented Mar 20, 2022

I'll close this PR for now @Panquesito7. Feel free to reopen it if you still plan to work on it 😄

@Thomas-Boi Thomas-Boi closed this Mar 20, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion Use this label for community discussions about changes/features/.. enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants