Parobalth parobalth@gmail.com writes: ...
For example Debian uses a dual licensed logo with an "open use logo" and a restricted-use logo for use by the Debian Project and its members only.
... and I'd strongly recommend against doing the same.
The way that came about was that the original vote had the logos the other way around, and quite a lot of people thought they were voting for the paint-brush swirl as the one that would be easy to use.
Immediately after the vote it became clear to them that the smooth-swirl + bottle was the one that was the more liberal use license, and there was much gnashing of teeth, so we then had another vote to swap them.
So now most people are completely unaware of the restricted use logo:
https://www.debian.org/logos/#restricted-use
It's a mess, but either were better than Captain Blue-Eye (a.k.a the deranged chicken), and also much better than the alternatives IMO.
While we're on the subject though, one reason it was such a mess was that people failed to understand what a logo was, and insisted on including text in the logo ... which I just did too ... Oops!
There are very few logos that include text and are also widely recognised. There's Coke's (with it's Spencerian script), there's IBM, with the stripy font) and that's about it.
The Debian competition can be seen here -- the rules were pretty sane:
https://www.debian.org/News/1999/19990204.en.html
even if many of the submissions ignored them completely, and the ensuing argument was pretty unedifying -- as was often our way back then :-/
Cheers, Phil.