Template talk:User OS:Ubuntu

Debian logo.

Just a suggestion, but what about changing the colour of the debian logo, tilting it or adding something else (like a "derived from" text) to differentiate it? At first glance the debian logo is a bit misleading. --Outlyer 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

using the debian logo is inaccurate. this is approximately equivalent to using the red hat logo for a mandriva userbox. --Ptkfgs 07:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The logo should be changed to something abstract -- pehaps the letter "U". Using the Debian logo here is simply incorrect. --mako 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done, Mako.--Mac Lover 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu logo.

If we can't use the Ubuntu logo, is File:Vista-folder ubuntu.png incorrectly tagged as GPL? -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t17:33z

That file seems to be deleted. So I suppose the answer was yes -- but it doesn't really matter much now anyway. -- mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we use the Ubuntu logo? Canonical has a fairly lenient trademark policy . Max.diems (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative logos

I've created an alternative version of this template, which uses the generic Linux penguin. Feel free to use, modify, etc... -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox WP:TGS Template

This user contributes using Ubuntu.

{{User:Gaius Octavius/Userboxes/UbuPenguin}}

If you do make any changes (or have suggestions), please leave a message on my Talk page. I'd love to see 'em! -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an Ubuntu logo-like logo:

Userbox WP:TGS Template

This user contributes using Ubuntu.

{{template:user ubuntu}}

SteveSims 06:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted Steve's logo to an SVG, and made some slight modifications. --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the alternative logo is not a copyright violation

It has four main colors; Canonical's has three colors total.
It has four "children"; Canonical's has only three children.
These children's heads overlap their "arms" on both sides. In Canonical's logo, not only do they not intersect but they do not even touch; nowhere in Canonical's logo do different colors touch, except due to anti-aliasing.
The colors are in completely different positions.
These children are separated by 90 degrees (a consequence of having an additional child) while Canonical's are separated by 120 degrees.
Three of the four main colors used in this logo are not used in Canonical's.
This logo has additional colors, mainly on the outside edge of the large "circle" (see next reason)

where the children's arms meet their "heads." Canonical's does not.

These children align with the directions on a compass; Canonical's do not.
These children's arms are created by dividing a large sixteen-sided polygon; Canonical's are made by dividing a large circle.
These children's heads are much larger than Canonical's, and their arms are much smaller and proportionately wider.
This image transitions much less smoothly to transparent than Canonical's.

Remember that all content on Wikipedia except the Wikimedia foundation's project's logos can be used commercially according to the GFDL, and Ubuntu doesn't allow that with copies according to [1]. While your image isn't a copy, if it's close enough to serve as an obvious replacement then I think it infringes. If it's not an obvious enough replacement then we shouldn't use it to indicate Ubuntu. We have no fair use defense since it's used in the user namespace. If you disagree please email[2] the foundation's legal council. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-09t09:35z

I've created a new version of the logo, primarily because Steve's sadly wasn't in the SVG format, which is preferable for this kind of work. My non-copyvio rationale are as follows:

Four "children" are present, as opposed to Canonical's three.
Although the heads of the "children" are in a position more similar to Canonical's than in Steve's version, they do intersect, as opposed to Canonical's version, in which the heads are separate from the body/arms.
Certain colors are different than in Canonical's version. Although in a more complex work this may be insignificant, in a basic logo such as this, a large portion of the data is the coloration.
The orientation of the "children" is different, as is the length of their arms and the size of their heads in proportion to these. The "children" are also separated by 90º, which is a result of the presence of the extra "child", as opposed to the apparently approximate 120º in Canonical's logo.

I believe that these differences adequately disqualify the logo from being a copyright violation of Canonical's. --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost text

This template (used as a userbox) has lost its text, could it be restored please?: Noyster (talk), 08:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]