Re: LilyPond logo?

[Carl Sorensen]

On 8/4/16 7:10 AM, "Andrew Bernard" <address@hidden> wrote:

>There seems to be an assumption here that the logo _is_ the waterlily
>graphic on the webpage, and that it is just a matter of coding it up. I
>am not sure that this is the formal lilypond logo, is it? Has that been
>decided or discussed? In any case, does it convey the brand clearly and
>recognisably? What is a logo for? Does lilypond actually need visual
>branding? Are we trying to increase market share with a logo?

It's pretty clear to me that the waterlily graphic is *not* a logo; it's a
web graphic.  I like it on the website.  But it doesn't have the right
characteristics for a logo.

>Colour is no good - pretty much everybody prints music in B&W, and
>musicians copy it on photocopiers in B&W. So if a logo is to be made, it
>would have to be B&W almost of necessity.

Yes, and not gray scale either.  Just black and white.

>
>Since lilypond is GNU lilypond, does the GNU logo have to be
>incorporated? I think there are many questions.

The GNU logo does not have to be incorporated.  See, for example the GIMP
logo.  http://www.gimp.org/

I agree that if we want to have a logo available on the colophon, we
should create a real logo.  And this will require some work and discussion.

Thanks,

Carl