Logo Redux 6 comments
I received a lot of feedback, humor, and creativity in response to my article about an alternate community logo for Rails.
I received an official reply but don’t want to distort the ideas that were communicated, so I’ll let the people in question speak for themselves. However, the end result is that if you use Rails, you should be aware of the fact that the graphical logo representing Rails is trademarked. Developing an alternate logo isn’t going to be a worthwhile pursuit.
There are also some erroneous ideas that have been circulating. The good news is that you won’t be forced to pay any royalty to use the words “Ruby on Rails.”
Philosophical Reactions
As someone who appreciates graphic design, I think this is an interesting commentary on the power of visuals. People rally behind country flags, sports team mascots, and even company logos.
Even in the unemotional field of computer science, we want to be emotionally attached to a concept and a community. A visual logo is often the focus and expression of our enthusiasm for a technology. We want to wear it like a shield on our t-shirts and build our own company logos, blogs, and domain names around it (possibly in denial of how fast technologies change, or possibly in admission of how fast companies go out of business).
Maybe it was the more emotional among us who were disappointed to hear about restrictions on the use of a visual we had invested our hopes, dreams, and aspirations into. We think of open source software as a guerilla, anti-corporate endeavor and trademarks as a protective, corporate measure, so it’s hard to understand the two coming together.
In the end, we still value the seal of approval just as people have for thousands of years (both the owners and the recipients of the seal).
The Ruby Logo
So if you need a visual to rally around or tattoo on your ankle1, try the beautiful Creative Commons-licensed Ruby logo designed by the talented John Long.
David Black pointed me at the site for the Ruby Visual Identity Team which even includes a downloadable kit with copies of the logo in many known bitmap and vector formats.
There’s even a mailing list where you can ask Matz personally for permission to use the logo, which is often granted.
1 The Ruby logo is liberally licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. In my understanding of the license, this only applies to modifications on the logo itself and would not extend to your body after being tattooed with it.
Nuby on Rails
Geoffrey Grosenbach / Ruby / Code / Graphics / Design / Rails / Merb / Javascript / CSS
Manufactured with
Subscribe
Menu
Recent Articles
- Not with a bang...
- Improve Your Technical Slides
- The Third Seattle.RBBQ
- PeepCode is [No Longer] Looking to Hire a Virtual Assistant
- IOTC Open Source Conference in Dublin
- → Older articles
Speaking At
Elsewhere
- PeepCode Screencasts
- Ruby on Rails Podcast
- Rails Workshop Calendar
- Job Leads
- Task Scoresheet
- Podcasting Basics
- Topfunky on Twitter
- Topfunky Corporation
Free Software
Can you clarify exactly what you mean by “Developing an alternate logo isn’t going to be a worthwhile pursuit” – do you mean in a legal or practical sense? If legal, is using the term “Ruby on Rails” in conjunction with a ‘Ruby’ logo acceptable, or does any graphical representation of ‘Rails’ infringe on some sort of trademark?
I realize you’re not ultimately making these decisions, but it sounds like you’ve received fairly definitive input from the people who are
(sorry for the double-post)
I’m a little confused I suppose by this merciless defence of something that the community has driven.
I completely understand that RoR is D.H.H.’s baby. However, the day he put that bad boy into the wild and people helped him hone, develop, refine, and evangelize it he also began SHARING the success.
To suggest, as he is, that the contributions to the open source project are separate from the visual identity of success of the project is simply remarkable. The posts that I’ve read about it, from others, and by D.H.H. himself are equally remarkable.
I understand that D.H.H.’s business IS Ruby on Rails. However, the community gave that application legs. Utilizing the logo should not be the pain point for anyone! It simply doesn’t scale to chase down ALL uses of a logo when you could say something like, “If we deem that the use of the logo does not represent the quality or message we’re trying to send about Ruby on Rails a cease & desist letter will be sent.”
Instead, a blanket statement suggesting legal action against people who use it is promoted. Then we also get the enigmatic wording here, “Developing an alternate logo isn’t going to be a worthwhile pursuit.”
I agree with Geoffrey for not publishing something sent to him in confidence. At the same time, I feel like this is a topic worth exploring until a reasonable answer can be provided to the community other than, “Use of the logo means that David has put his stamp of the approval on the project.” I would suggest that NO other company does that.
A clear definition of acceptable use would go a LONG way. Folks using the logo on their blogs shouldn’t be included for example. I COMPLETELY understand the use of the logo on books, instructional DVDs, etc. The statements that have come out, however, are suggestive that those are not the only things D.H.H. is trying to restrict.
Any posts I should see that might help me out?
@Keith: Well stated.
According to my uninformed understanding, it’s only commercial products that are in question here. It has never been said that action would be brought against people using the logo in a non-commercial context. (But that’s just a guess.)
@crayz: The word I received was that DHH would oppose the creation of a separate visual identity that purported to represent Ruby on Rails.
I doubt that he meant legal opposition, but beyond that, I’m stepping out of this logo mess and will let the man speak for himself.
Thank you for the clarification. I guess then I’m left wondering why people are so worked up?
The vast majority of rails users don’t need to utilize the Rails logo in a commercial representation. Simply using it to state you work with that framework sounds like it’s sanctioned use.
I’m wondering if DHH has any issues with a company or product using the phrase “Ruby on Rails” to advertise or market said product or company.
Suppose a RoR development company with honest intentions wants to market the fact that they specialize in RoR development? Are we to understand that it violates the trademark to say “Hey, we only do Ruby on Rails development”?
That would be ridiculous and only hurt the high adaptation and momentum that RoR currently enjoys. It is like having a company that sells retail Sony products and marketing “We sell high-quality electronics which are produced by a very well-known corporation whose name starts with ‘S’ and ends with ‘y’.
— From a guy who works for a company that uses a well-known Ruby framework to design and develop web sites.
—Chris