dotland
dotland copied to clipboard
denoland
add new 2021 logo
I don't know the actual creation date and didn't want to assume the license so I added "UNKNOWN" there and made this a draft PR for now. @hashrock might have to look over this.
Also the logo referenced here is actually the SVG version created by @jaydenseric here: https://github.com/denoland/dotland/pull/1836. Don't know if they should be added to this JSON as well.
Sorry for pinging you guys and I hope I did everything correctly. 😶🌫️
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.
This is a graphic I made in 2020. The logo is often changed to match the top page design, so this may not be treated as a "new deno logo".
I think it's a good idea to make it MIT, but what do you think? @ry
While researching another thing today, incidentally I once again stumbled upon https://choosealicense.com/, which recommends several non-software licenses.
It may be worth looking at how for example npm or the OpenJS Foundation handles that stuff, but also, these are full on registered trademarks so I don't know if that really applies here.
Hi @jaydenseric, thanks for making the SVG version. I'm sorry if my earlier comment seemed to ignore your contribution. Of course, I'm assuming that this file contains the creative work of you and other contributors.
It's complicated to have multiple authors. Would it be more convenient to not dare to clarify the license? Maybe it would be better to leave it UNKNOWN and add the names alrra, jaydenseric, koji. We'll have to add more contributors as we go along.
Sorry for referencing that site again (😂) but not choosing a license at all doesn't seem like a good idea. Ultimately it's the decision of you guys but leaving it as "UNKNOWN" or "No license" is the worst outcome I can think of.
To fulfill the obligations of the MIT license, would we need to include the license in the source code of the SVG
I feel this is not expected for logos. So I guess the right choice would be something like CC0-1.0.
@ry What do you think?
