Was this ever an official , licensed logo?
Was this ever an official , licensed logo?
Using Joey’s logo, I made this:
Should stress that this is just playing around really, I’m not a logo designer.
If up to me, I’d use the well-established Unity logo provided by @Wimpress. It’s simple, clean, and recognizable.
But even so, here are two additional possibilities:
Of course, the colors could be changed, such as to purple and white, or purple and orange, or whatever appropriate.
Is ubuntu logo allowed on third-party brand/logo ?
Good question. Should ask Canonical to confirm.
But, given that the project is (as I understand it) permitted to use the “Ubuntu Unity” mark, my guess is that the logo that I propose (which is a composite) would also be permitted, provided permission were properly requested.
But again, should ask Canonical to confirm.
Thinking more about it, I would still guess that, given Canonical is already allowing the project to use Canonical’s “Unity” mark, Canonical would probably also allow the group to use either of the previous two logos that I proposed, provided permission were properly requested. But again, that’s just my guess.
However, if I’m guessing wrong, then here’s an alternative that may be permissible:
As before, the colors could be changed, such as to purple and white, or purple and orange, or whatever appropriate.
I hope that @d0od likes that dots inside the Unity U.
But just to reiterate, of all the logos proposed on this page, my first preference is the well-established Unity logo provided by @Wimpress. It’s simple, clean, and recognizable.
Of the logos that I submitted, I prefer either of the logos that incorporate the whole Ubuntu logo, provided Canonical would permit using such a logo.
I’m only submitting this logo as a fall-back, just in case Canonical doesn’t permit using my more preferred logos.
One “issue” with using text in a logo is that it’s become indistinct at low resolutions. The same goes for logos that are overly detailed or intricate. Ideally an “Ubuntu Unity Remix” logo (I am not an expert so this is all my opinion) should:
A helpful thing to do is imagine a logo as a session selector badge on the lightdm greeter and see if it still “works” (is it identifiable, distinct, clear, etc?)
Remember that, if the remix was to go ahead, the logo will be used alongside a word mark (like the full Xubuntu*, Ubuntu Budgie*, et al, where * is the logo) and it’s best to not duplicate the word “unity” in those instances (otherwise it reads as “ubuntu unity remix unity”)
And in that exercise @meetdilip’s logo (cut the Unity DE bit off) works.
This is a really good logo.
The Linux world knows about Unity in Ubuntu, so it won’t be a surprise to anyone, if the new ubuntu-unity-remix would be called just Uubuntu. At first people would be surprised at the two “U” letters, but later everyone would get used to it, just like they did with Kubuntu, Lubuntu or Xubuntu. There is no (real) need to specially say that it is (with) Unity.
So, the logo should be with only one “U” and there should be no mention of “Unity DE” in it. And, also no mention of “remix” too. Especially, the non-Linux world equals Linux with Ubuntu. And, for last 6 years Ubuntu was special (with Unity), so why dilute the meaning? Let it be Uubuntu.
Historically, the purpose of a trademark is to identify the source of a good or service. From a trademark perspective, “*buntu” names are a bad idea. The two components of an *buntu name are each trademarks themselves. Without getting into details, smooshing together two trademarks creates the risk of potentially diluting each of the underlying marks.
Anyway, whether Canonical’s current policy stems from consultation with a trademark specialist, or is based on some other reason, as @popey previously mentioned, Canonical is no longer receptive to new *buntu names.
And in any case, “Ubuntu” and “Uubuntu” would sound too similar (identical?) when spoken, and so the two names would lead to confusion.
Given the above, one may wonder why I guess that Canonical would find either of the first two logos that I submitted (the ones that include the full Ubuntu logo, combined with the Unity “U”) acceptable. Well, what Canonical would decide, I can only guess. But I know why Canonical should find them acceptable. The explanation would take to time to craft. If there is any genuine interest in my reasoning, let me know, and I’ll do my best to explain.
Cannonical created Unity, so I am not at all certain that Cannonical would let Unity die in a hurry. And, for the last 6 years or so, Ubuntu was Unity, not anything else, so the majority of Ubuntu users (not the few, who come here or to forums or to some Ubuntu related sites) still would be expecting same old Ubuntu as they were used for last 6 years. They may not even know that Ubuntu changed its main DE few months ago. For them, Uubuntu would be OK with Unity inside. A remix would be bit strange for them. Anyway, have a look here, do you see any other desktop there, other than the “original” Ubuntu? Check any page under “Desktop.”
We can use “Ubuntu Unity 7 Desktop Experience” or “ubuntu-unity”. If you are proposing an artwork then Unity 7 or Unity 7 DE or even ubuntu-unity . The logo/trademark has to be bang on ie; “Circle of Friends” and not be distorted or modified in any way so if you are creating or suggesting a design for a logo it would be appreciated that you build it tightly to resemble the ubuntu logo/trademarks as much as possible.
Not a big deal, but I’m not sure why you directed the above response to my previous post.
In my previous post, I was explaining to @chanath why a name such as “Uubuntu” (which @chanath proposed) probably wouldn’t be permitted by Canonical, at least according to a post by @popey. That is, I did not suggest any name to use in this thread.
Actually, yes, in other posts in this thread, I did submit three potential logos for consideration. Of the three logos that I submitted, I prefer my first two, namely the logos that include the full Ubuntu logo, combined with the Unity “U” within. (See post #13 above.) And I proposed another alternative in post #16.
Asking about the first two logos that I proposed, @meetdilip asked:
QUESTION: Do you feel that Canonical would find either of the two logos that I submitted in post #13 acceptable, from a trademark perspective, for use by this project? (NOTE: I’m not asking whether you or Canonical like either of the logos, but just whether Canonical would find either of them to be acceptable, from a trademark perspective.)
Just to reiterate:
I had already proposed that name in another forum some while back (Uubuntu). @jbicha pointed out that people may be confused by how it sounds, how it is spelled and I agreed with him. I do not know why @chanath brought it back up.
Yes they are both acceptable because CoF logo is clear and distinct and it is granted that the “U” and “Unity” refer to Ubuntu or Unity - at least in my opinion.
Thanks much for the reply. Much appreciated!
Yep, that’s pretty much what I guessed. But of course, we’d have to defer to Canonical for a final pronouncement as to what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
I’ll just point out that, near as I can tell, Canonical seems to be taking a slightly different approach toward trademark usage with Ubuntu Unity compared to the approach that Canonical takes with other remixes/flavors. My guess is that the reason for the slightly different approach is that Canonical considers Ubuntu Unity to be a special situation, which I interpret to be a good thing.
Basically a person who has a license to distribute can use ubuntu abbreviations (caveats applied for) prefixed or suffixed by the official logo.
Well, we are a little off topic here… but I think unity end_users understand the differentiation between the desktop-experience and phones and tablets. During the Unity8 project ,which was so awesomely ambitious, people knew there was a fall back to the DE. A small group , myself included, tried to push the envelope to have unity-session in 17.10 and now in 18.04 for testing so I think most persons get the drift that the project is attempting to move and look forwards rather than backwards.
If/when ubuntu-unity becomes a flavour, it would look much nicer as Uubuntu, rather than Ubuntu Unity. Ubuntu is known as the distro with (controversial ?) Unity for last 6 years, with some hate and love, but well known. When there are two "oo"s, people read it as a long “u.” There aren’t any English words starting with two "u"s, but if there were, it would be pronounced as a long u, but after sometime, people would forget the long sound and come back to the familiar single u sound.
(It’s already more than a month since the default bionic was announced and there isn’t much discussion about it in the other forum. I’ve predicted this lack of interest.)
For the logo, I vote for the 2nd one in @GizmoChicken post 13 with single letter U in the middle.
Thanks much! Yep, that’s the one that I would prefer. But just to clarify, although we can speculate as to what logo Canonical will deem acceptable for use with Ubuntu Unity, we probably still need to get some feedback from Canonical on this.
As @dale-f-beaudoin mentioned, we seem to be getting a bit off topic, so we should probably move this discussion elsewhere. But in brief, I fully agree that Canonical likely doesn’t want the Unity mark to die. However, keep in mind that one way a trademark “dies” is through disuse. A flavor named “Ubuntu Unity” arguably continues to use the “Unity” mark, whereas a flavor named “Uubuntu” arguably doesn’t. So, arguably, a flavor named “Ubuntu Unity” is a better way to keep the “Unity” mark alive.
Simply - I am not using “Uubuntu” in any of the builds I am distributing at this time. I am using “Unity 7 Desktop Experience” and “ubuntu-unity” and currently available logos and trademarks. I enjoy this discussion because some of the art work is really great so perhaps we may decide to use one of them in mid January.