Mark Boulton Design

Both varients work for me although the lowercase ‘d’ seems very approachable and ‘familiar’. So it gets my vote. Maybe you should put a ‘voting’ poll up on it?

’d’ is more aesthetically pleasing to me.

Definitely not Cap-D… for one it makes it too formal, as you said, but you also lose the association with the ‘p’.

’D’ with splash seems balanced for me. If without the splash, ‘d’ for me.

I agree with Paul Annett. 

The lowercase logo is too heavy on the right due to the trademark.  I would hope that a CMS would want to seem more formal, remember what happened to jQuery’s “rock star” image? 

Also, Drupal is capitalized everywhere on it’s site, except the page title (which is reflecting the URI).

I like the lowercased logo as it’s more friendly and less formal.  Although now that Paul mentions it, you do kind of see the splash as a pivot point.

Definitely lowercased!

Small “d” for sure, for me.

I like both of them. I tend to agree a little bit with Paul about the balance issue - maybe flipping the splash would help with that (although doing so may then lose the left-to-right flow of the splash, so I don’t know).

To my eye, the distinctive cut in the lowercase d will make it more versatile, able to used on its own separate from the rest of the wordmark.

I would say lowercased and splash. Lowercased because less formal and definitively more “creative” and the splash because without would be really boring…

I’m throwing my vote towards the lowercase version. The Cap puts itself on equal footing with the splash, which (to me) degrades the impact of the graphic. I also like the balance between the lowercase “d” ascender and the “l”.

Lower case d and splash works for me. Balances with the p.
Without the splash, I think it needs the upper case D to give weight. The curves are nice - strangely making me think of adidas!

I prefer lowercase, with splash.

I’d have to go with the uppercase “D” myself. All lowercase lettering seems a bit trendy, imho, and the mixed case will lend itself to a bit more longevity. I agree it feels more balanced visually and I think it’s a nice touch-back to the existing wordmark.

Thumbs up on the splashes and the deeper cuts in the letters. I think those are solid directions Mark.

I definitely prefer the lowercase ‘d’ and the splash too, though the logo does seem slightly off-balance alright.

I’m with lowercase and splash too.

lowercased and splash

Lowercase ‘d’ with a splash, adds some nice colour to the logo.

Definitely use the lower-case “d,” as it establishes a wonderful mirroring of the “p” character shape (and, to a certain extent, the ‘a’).

I like the logo better with the splash, but I’m not sure its execution is quite “there” for me yet. It feels too liquidy, almost like laundry detergent, and not as stable as one would want from a CMS solution.

The “d” feels more friendly and comfortable; like a thing. The “D” makes it feel more like a company or business. The splash is cool.

What’s funny is, I’m reminded of Twitter’s failwhale. But I personally think the failwhale is the best “sorry, broken product” branding ever.

Yup Cap D with splash imho.  Much more balanced and the “dr” sound works great with the splash bug - makes me think of a stone dropped in a pond.

Lowercase “d.” It’s form works so nicely with the “p” and “a.” And I love the splash. It brings life to the wordmark and is a great way to introduce a 2nd (and third and fourth) color and gives you a lot of flexibility for other creative expression.

Mark this is good, the deeper cuts are a real improvement.

I agree that is the current lower case wordmark looks better.
However, it has to be upper case. It is a proper noun. And a trademark. Surely that is why the guidelines have always said use the upper case form.

I think that lowercase wordmarks are only acceptable if the wordmark is a web address: so drupal.org would be fine, but the software, the community, the brand, has to be Drupal.

I also favor the lowercase/splash combo, though I can see how that could be a bit trendy.

Love the blues, not so keen on the solid black at the moment though.

Uppercase D looks out of place for some reason while the lowercase just ‘fits’ better. Don’t ask me why...I’m a techie The splash definitely gives more impact.

I think I’d choose the uppercase variant, but the “D” looks a bit wrong. The way the top arches up doesn’t look natural to my eye. It’s as if someone stretched it from the top-right corner.

The addition of the splash doesn’t do much for me. Looks a bit generic web2.0 , if you know what I mean? What does it represent?

Those splashmarks really do look familiar. Here is my take of Drupal logo back in Oct 2002.
http://kika.trip.ee/drupal_lost_logos

I much prefer the lowercase d to the more “assertive” (or possibly formal?) uppercase D.  With the splash, which I think is interesting, the one thing that did come to mind is the peacock logo qualities of the NBC t.v. network in the U.S.  - not sure if that had been a consideration or how people might feel about it a similarity to a recognizable logo - I think the uppercase D accentuates that effect ( perhaps I’m just dreaming and it’s just me hehe )

I like where this is going, though, and love the interaction in the process.  Keep up the great work!

-=- christopher

I prefer the lowercase-D with splash version. However, if you were to go sans-splash I like the uppercase-D.

It’s got to be lower case D and splash for me!

I ‘d have to go with the uppercase ‘D’ as the lowercase version is too similar to the dyson logo:
http://www2.academee.com/images/case-studies/dyson_logo.jpg

Personally I’m not fussed either way in regards to the splash, would need to see how this was used in context with the rest of the items to see if it lends to it or not.

Also remember blue doesn’t photocopy well.

Lowercase and no splash for me. Just not getting the ‘splash’ when I think of what drupal (oops, no caps) is/does.

Lower case d without splash. The splash seems a little kidish!

I much prefer the uppercase D.

1 - It balances better graphically with the splash.

2 - It matches the editorial usage of Drupal with a capital D.

3 - It’s more consistent with the existing wordmark.

4 - I don’t find lowercase d more “friendly” just more informal, which in a logo strikes me as an underwhelming reason in and of itself.

Wouldn’t mind seeing some variations on the cap D letter, as the squareness of it seems to work against the curves of the rest.

Nice!

I like both the lowercase and uppercase d/D, with the splash.

My first, gut response was that I liked lowercase better, mostly because it seems approachable. After looking at the logo for an extended period of time though I began to feel like the capital ‘D’ did balance out the splash-pivot in a useful way, adds balance.

Ultimately I decided that they both look good and I’d be happy with either. I’d be interested in seeing some designs which different splash designs, maybe a few with a more centralized splash (see if that helps with balance on the lowercase design).

Looking at it again, I’m finding the lowercase version with the splash to look quite good. But my reasons against lowercase d still block me from preferring it. It’s Drupal, not drupal. Or at least it has been up until now.

I think we have to use “D”, to stick with the style guidelines, and I feel that it looks better anyway.  I’m not sure the splash is 100% there yet, but I do feel that it improves the wordmark quite a lot.

i like the lowercase d and how it echoes the form of the “p”.

there is absolutely no need to make the case of a logo match the case used in editorial text (e.g. “Macy’s” is the name of the store and “macy★s” is the logo—and the “discrepancy” is no problem at all). the converse is true too. just because a logo is all lowercase, or all caps, or includes punctuation, or whatever, doesn’t mean that the proper name in regular text has to be anything but normal proper-name case. (mark, obviously you already know this)

good: the less “o"-like “a”

Lowercased splash looks great, but beware of looking too close to NBC’s peacock logo.

Honestly I think this design direction should be scrapped. Mainly as it has been pointed out its not unique and personally I find it to be a bit kiddish coz what springs to my mind is the Lego duplo logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplo). Even letter combination is almost the same. And what’s with the splash? As pointed out by Splashmarks, its been done before.

Mark, in your effort to have the friendly element, the design has turned out to be kiddish as mentioned and not that all serious. I’m fairly new to the Drupal community but my web developer had adviced on adapting Drupal for our web development projects. Therefore, I would like make a small contribution here with my take on the Drupal logo. View it here: http://www.bobserver.net/drupal/drupal_proposal.jpg

I saw on a lot of other blogs on the Drupal planet is that many were interpreting the question “Why do you want to change the wordmark?” as “The current wordmark is perfect. We don’t want to change it. What is wrong with you?”. That’s really not the intention: in open source, it helps to know where you’re coming from to see where you’re going. I really want to hear /you/ explain what you want to do differently and what you don’t like about the old one. It helps puts things into context and establishes some metrics of evaluating the work you’re doing and the choices you make.

Definitely the lowercase “d” is better. The uppercase D makes the word look very bland. I actually don’t think that balance is terribly important. Sometimes unbalanced is far more dynamic and interesting. It all depends on ho w the whole design hangs together.
My one problem is that I don’t quite see the splash, in its current placement, as being integrated with the text. It looks a bit like it was just plopped on top anywhere.
But it’s miles ahead of that creepy little bug thing we use now. Keep up the good work.

I really like the splash idea. I don’t know that I have a preference for the uppercase or lowercase, though I will say that I was a little shocked by the black in general.

Design wise, I feel like the lowercase d and the splash together are the strongest, however… what good is a style guide if we don’t keep with consistency from one version to the next?  I know there are some really classic examples of throwing the rule book out and still getting great design (Coca-Cola anyone?) but that’s the exception, not the rule, and frankly, I’d like to stick with a capital “D” if possible.

With that said, I’m going to toss some comments out here…

1.) I REALLY like the fact that the lower case “d” is a lighter gray color.  It makes it stand out and I too feel like this almost gives it enough recognition to become an icon on its own.  I’d like to see the upper case “D” get the same treatment, and maybe a few options for the letter as I don’t like the current incarnation of the capital “D”.

2.) I like the idea of the splash, but not necessarily the execution.  Sometime a little more elaborate might fix that problem.  I know we’re not stuck with/on colors at this moment, but the right most blue in the splash is… unappealing to me.  I think another color could be found that would match better… it’s too red.

3.) as mentioned earlier I like the treatment that the “d” has gotten being lighter.  I’m also not 100% on the all black text.  Maybe a really dark charcoal… still darker than the current “d”.

Definitely some improvements over the last one here, so a win all around in that regard.

OMG I just looked again and I’m a total pysco! the “d” is the same color, just visually looks lighter because of how the text lays out… that’s weird.  Maybe it’s my screen?  if not I like the optical illusion, but would actually love to see what I thought was happening there executed.  Maybe serendipity.

@Steven Wittens

I think Mark tried to at least start that process over here:
http://www.markboultondesign.com/news/detail/why_do_we_need_a_new_logo_anyway/
maybe if you’d like some more details you can get them on that post?  Last I checked it was still open for commenting.

I agree that the lower-case version looks slightly heavy to the right, but I am not sure that is a bad thing. In and of itself, I prefer the lower-case d for the same reasons mentioned previously. I also like the splash but would like to see you continue to play with its placement and form.

I am least sold on the type-face, mostly the a. I think we want something that is approachable and friendly but still possesses a bit of panache.  Drupal is so customizable (and wants to be as friendly as its community) that I think a bit more playfulness is called for. Maybe the splash is sufficient. I am feeling that the type-face needs one instance of whimsey, too. I am not (alas!) a type-face ninja though.

I think the cuts are a little too deep for me. I prefer the lower case, and without the splash. The splash feels like it’s directed at children’s products.

OK, not nuts, the “d” really is a different color.

Also worth noting is that the “D” appears to have a slant on the top of the letter which I decidedly don’t like.  Just getting my $0.02 out there.

Although I realize I’m in a minority here, I prefer the upper-case ‘D’, with the splash.

However, the ‘r’ really bothers me. If you look at the ‘p’, ‘a’, and the lower-case ‘d’, the “cuts” where the curve joins the straight line are different from the ‘r’ — in the ‘p’ and ‘a’, the line part is straight, while in the ‘r’, the straight line part has some kind of angle on it. I think that’s part of the problem. Also, I think the ‘r’ is too narrow — the curve part doesn’t extend far enough.

Woah. A great new presentation and comments galore! Fantastic!

I think this is an excellent progression from the initial sketches. The splash is wonderful and playful, as are the cuts. I like that the splash marks also look like dialogue bubbles. I like the multiple colours. I like the uppercase and lowercase D. Although without the splash the TM definitely needs to be balanced with the uppercase D. With the splash it can go either way. I’d be curious to see what the uppercase D looks like if it’s reduced to the x height of the other letters. Is it possible to make the uppercase D as fun as the other letters in the pack? (It seems forced… like an awkward teen trying to fit in with the other hipster kids.)

I don’t like how heavy the TM sits at the end of the word. I feel like it tips the whole wordmark down. (I understand that it needs to be this heavy at the larger size so that it appears at the smallest size.) Can the TM be put at the bottom of the wordmark instead of the top?

Looking forward to the next round!

Lowercase “d” looks good, it reminds me of druplicon...and I like the splash. I can see why people would like it uppercase, but for this logo lowercase seems to work better for me.

The splash should stay, it keeps an animated element in the logo, and also gives the smaller Drupal groups and camps something to play off of...which is essential for the Drupal community to maintain that feeling of unification worldwide.

As a couple of others mentioned, I’d like to see more work done on the uppercase D itself so it fits in better before deciding either way - since I think the slightly less honed appearance of it is perhaps what’s swaying people towards the lowercase. EclipseGc has a good point with using a very dark grey instead of all black, although it’s possibly too early for that particular decision. There’s still a little bit of NBC in the splash, but it wouldn’t take much more refinement to dispel that, and it definitely needs something along those lines.

I definitely like the splash.  It suggests energy and forward motion.  (Remember, the Drop is always moving. ) It also keeps the playful tone.

However, I do favor a capital D, but not this capital D.  This one has a weird tilt to it that doesn’t work for me.  It makes it look sloppy and unfinished.

However, a straighter, more block D would balance out better.  it would also suggest a more formal, businessy feel, which I consider a good thing.  Drupal is not just a playful friendly toy.  It is a big, business-friendly system that you can rely on.  Play with the Drop, Trust the D. That should also help with the Duplo comment someone made above.

Thanks for keeping the process so open, Mark!

Great.
My vote clearly for lowercase, as well. The capital D completely breaks the flow of the form.

I like the splash - but here inevitably the question comes in how it will go with the druplicon - for definitely in many cases the druplicon will go along with the logotype. Or not, and I missed something?

The cuts in the round letters are brilliant and exactly what was needed to set it apart from Bauhaus. Though it somehow does not work on the “d”, appears to make sense like this only when a circle is changed in the bottom.

What also bugs me is that it makes a heavier and less fluent impression than the first go - has more character, but is less elegant.

Maybe you are playing around with a bit lighter strokes, and how about giving the splash a bit lighter colors. And, maybe a little bit more space between the letters would give it more air to breathe. I scaled it down in photoshop and it gets worse being smaller - the letters virtually stick to each other then.

Yes, this is designers police speaking

I’d be curious to hear why you made the lowercase ‘d’ a lighter gray. It looks rather arbitrary to me. I agree with catch that the uppercase ‘D’ looks like it just hasn’t been as fine-tuned as the rest. Don’t have a real opinion on the splash yet. Definitely a lot more personality in the lettershapes. Good progression.

I think the uppercase D makes the logo seem too “top heavy”; its crowding the splash.

And, unlike many others, I don’t see the convergence point of the droplets as a pivot point. That convergence point needs to be off-center to so that the large droplet can create the balance.

Also I’m starting to see the d and l as the sides of a pool. Maybe we need a tagline too?  “Drupal… jump in!”

For this draft design, I like the lowercase d and the splash.

I’m for an uppercase wordmark. Lowercase doesn’t always mean ‘approachable’ and ‘playful’ to me. When AT&T;corp went lowercase with their wordmark recently I definitely felt it was more friendly. With Drupal, and at least in this case, I do not. I’d like to see more variations with an uppercase letter. The ‘d’ and ‘p’ do not have to match.

Little ‘d’, splash. Looking great.

I would echo JohnAlbin’s comments above about the convergence point of the droplets being off-center as a good thing and liking the lowercase version with splash. 

I’d also caution folks about worrying too much about the TM symbol when evaluating the wordmark; the TM symbol will not necessarily be used with every instance of the wordmark and could be replaced in the future with a registered trademark (R) symbol if the Drupal Association decides to register it.

I hate to say it, but the splash looks pornographic to me. I think it’s going to become the butt of jokes.

I like the upper-case “D”, as it seems more solide and businesslike. But it appears to need cleaning up. (The top horizontal bar seems to slant down and to the left.) I think the lower-case “d” is good, though, and would be happy with it as well.

Love this new logo iteration. I hate the old one - it is embarrassingly bad. Whenever I do a client site in Drupal, I cringe when my client sees that logo.

I agree with another commenter who says that this new wordmark feels heavier to the right - the “r” is too weak.

Tom says what I’m sure a lot of people are thinking. Is it supposed to be a splash, or a squirt? It’s an unfortunate visual metaphor.

Not as bad as some of these, though: http://www.b3ta.com/features/phalliclogoawards/

Overall, the text is definitely looking better than the first iteration, and the drops do bring some needed color.

Of the options, I like the Cap D with splash. The lowercase d looks like an upside down p, not a d because it lacks the tail on the straight line. The lighter d color is mysterious and looks like a mistake.

I don’t like the splash and i love the small ‘d’. The splash remember other web 2.0 logo, i would like drupal be different.

I prefer the lowercase d.

I like the effect of the splash - doing something pictorially, adding color.  But something about it - maybe I’m not crazy about it being a splash; maybe it needs to be off-center, maybe between the P and A.  In any case, my initial reaction is yes, I like the splash.

I prefer the uppercase D with the splash. I like it a lot more that the initial wordmark design.

- I really like the deeper cuts.  Big step forward.

- The U feels a little heavy compared to the other letters.

- The splash is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t feel 100% yet.  Can’t point my finger at it, but I’m missing an extra touch.

- http://www.bobserver.net/drupal/drupal_proposal.jpg is interesting too.  Not sure if it is better than the splash, but it has a fun story to tell.  It also reminds me of ‘building blocks’.

- The fact that the ‘d’ is not as black as the other letters, makes my eyes uneasy.

- I agree that the splash could be interpreted as somewhat sexual.

the new logo is very nice, i like the splash concept. i go for the small d

introfini

I like the capital D with the splash.  The capital makes the brand feel “strong”, whereas the lowercase feels a bit “weak”.  The splash makes it less generic, otherwise, it’s yet another font logo.

Just saw the “sexual” comment - and now that you mention it, it sticks out like… er… balls..

I thought I would mention that I intend to be promoting Drupal to non-techie business owner types, so the mark needs to give a sense of trust and reliability.  The capital D does that for me.  I use Drupal as a selling point, so a strong brand image will help.

The extra cuts definitely add more character to the wordmark. I’m still on the fence regarding the upper or lower case D, so I won’t add noise to that discussion

What bothers me more visually is the “r”, which does not fit in with the other shapes and makes the whitespace around the “u” unbalanced (as already noted in other comments).
So here is a crazy idea: wouldn’t it be possible to use some sort of smallcaps “r” (shape of uppercase “R” but at lowercase size and with the round shapes of like the “a” and “p")?
The hard challenge is of course to get both the circle shape and the legs of the “R” inside the same x-height of the “a”.
If possible, it would make the balance of shapes and kerning around the “u” better, which could even make an upercase “D” more acceptable from an aesthetical point of view.

just thinking out loud…

I’d like to see a response to Steven Witten’s comment.

Also, my vote is for the capital D. And for sticking with the current font. The fonts you’ve used look faddish, and like they’ll be out of style in 2.5 weeks.

nice to see a professional in action on the branding at last. gods love ‘em, the aesthetic judgment of most strongly technical people is awful. they’re highly prone to excessive literalism.

lowercase d definitely; splash mildly preferred.  this is far more approachable (Outsider-friendly)—and there are, and will be, orders of magnitude more of them than Insiders. 

extending the right-hand splash element slightly further horizontally might help with the perceptual balance; I don’t feel it’s problematic now.

finally, the Druplicon has passed its sell-by date. it’s oddly malevolent: the eye shapes suggest a (grinning) bandit in a stocking mask; overall it’s unmistakably naive.

Above: the drupal community’s friendliness has a warmth which needs that naive charm.

Personally I don’t like that font at all, or any or the new stuff. It looks really dated to me. It’s really just on a par with what was there before. It seems like a sidestep rather than a forward move.

I wonder if the design by community aspect of this will prevent a move of any great boldness. We should either be bold on this or just park our butts. A “satisfactory medium” will be just unsatisfactory, surely?

Can’t we have the confidence to use a capital ‘D’? Do we have to be subservient? It seems a sign of some weakness to me. Everything about Drupal has always seemed like “a gut punch with a silver lining” to me (and others) so far, so why change? If we prescribe to being something we’re not, what could happen? I don’t want to be part of a branding lie. Drupal isn’t suddenly going to “get easy” just because we redo the main website, no sir.

A letter in a different colour can work wonders (flickr anyone?) but here the difference is too subtle, my guess is it has been made lighter by accident.
I like the splash idea. My first reaction was to find them too kiddish though. I would have tried more geometric drops.
The “u” is like a test tube, is Drupal a permanent experiment? Bubbles?
(I write this as ideas come, just my first feelings)

Capital D!
The capital D still needs some love.  I think it requires the same attention to detail that the other letters have received.  I’d ultimately like to reserve judgment until there is further refinement.
The deeper cuts are an improvement but the P is left looking a little like its got a case of the mumps.
Still, its looking slightly less dated with the capital.  Or at least looks like it would age better (seem less tired in 2, 4, 10 years) than the lower case would.

errr.. let me be the devil’s advocate, no one mentioned splashing liquid sperms out of the ‘U’.. nevertheless its another source of life though

Hello Mark, I just started following the redesign efforts.

In your previous post you mentioned a few concepts you had swirling around your head while working with the initial designs. “modular, powerful, community, friendly, playful”.. I think there are too many competing ideas to get a sensible design with those seeding thoughts. I don’t claim to be an expert but if that could be boiled down to two or three concepts it might strengthen the design.

I don’t think playful has anything to do with Drupal so the splash does not look right to me. If I had to boil it down myself, it would be “powerful” and “open”. I always saw this as the core of Drupal. Powerful because it’s highly extensible and open because everyone can get involved. As long as the IA efforts work out, I don’t think we have to worry about scaring off new users. Is being friendly and playful a way to pull in new users? I’m not sure what lead you to that.

I wish you the best in nailing this down. The community needs it.

The fine-tuning in the characters is definitely helping give it a more unique look, and the splash is good! I’d stick with lowercase d. It has a better rhythm, with the reflection of the lowercase p & a. The uppercase D feels alien in comparison.

And let me say kudos for the openness and thick-skinnedness you’re showing by putting this process up for community criticism!

I agree with the lower-case d looking more friendly, in turn more approachable. The capitalization makes it feel more corporate and business geared.

I think the splash adds more of a visual feel to it, and in turns works with the friendly approach to the design.

lower case ‘d’ with splash.
Maybe splash could be placed on some other place ?

Try another Cap D.
That one is too square

A lot of what i think has already been said.

I like the lower d better. the upper and lower lengths sticking up an down can give it a nice rhythm.
The cuts you’ve introduced are a great step and give it a slightly cursive look. I’m sure you’ll try cutting them even deeper.

with regards to the splashes, I wonder if they wouldn’t be seen as the actual logo and not the wordmark. Or are they intended to work by themselves?

Great to see things shaping up.

lowercase d and splash works for me.

I think it’s important to remember some earlier comments about documentation as well; the last thing I want is to cause confusion with how to correctly spell “Drupal”.

For me, definitely lowercase d + splash. Nice work so far!

The Drupal icon/logo so long has been seen with a human ( humanoid or drupaloid ) face and this lends a great deal of warmth and feeling of ‘association’ [ associative emotion] consciously or subconsciously.

Replacing that with something like splash/swish or something ‘inanimate’ takes away all those feelings.
If changes in the surface/skin are a must they can be ‘improvement’ [ radical, if true need be so] rather than total killing what of this really long. long association.

Small voices like mine do go unheard and sometimes ( rarely? ) start a subtle downfall key-factor in the ....

Just imagine the Penguin is no longer associated with Linux!  ( And instead a cold ‘arrow’ or yet-another-swish )
Probably you get the picture

Oh yes, I did read Larry’s logic here at
http://www.markboultondesign.com/news/detail/why_do_we_need_a_new_logo_anyway/

However, I am not sure I understand/agree ....
If ‘Drupal’ was /is released under GPL and yet ‘Drupal’ can be TMed why not the icon/logo/mascot then ?? ??

Is there going to be commercial, trademark, business-reasoned version of Drupal - what it is ( or what this ‘service’ ) going to be called ? If it is something separate and not the same as the drupal.org we visit and use and endear so much, it can have a separate logo/icon while allowing drupal.org to have the same icon/logo/mascot or an improvement of it.

BTW the mass common users like us do not understand whatever the subtle differences may be between logo/icon/mascot ( and mascot is something that changes with event eg.olympic - drupal is not an event ) ...

The analogy of elePHPant and PHP logo does not hold much ( or rather any ) ground for the multitude of users who have made Drupal Drupal ... as Drupal is a cult like Linux itself and its just like replacing the word ‘Drupal’ ( did you get it )

Additional ponders : If the mascot has so long been used as logo, do we need to change it ?  Do we not keep the mascot as mascot/logo then and develope a separate logo also ? Or we develope a separate mascot then keeping this to continue as logo ?

Just because its a face there is absolutley no hindrance that it cannot be a logo

And GPL does allow thing to be used ‘commercially’ as long as the source is credited etc etc ? Doesn’t it ?

If the posts seem to be wrong place or need to be merged please do so .... the point of saying all these was to say keep some association with the “living-lively-warm-friendly” FORM FACTOR of the drupalicon/drupal face RATHER than just ‘killing’ it completely with some non-living ‘spalsh’ and EVEN the highest businesses or commercial ventures NEED NOT have something ‘cold’ or of ‘stony seriousness’

Minesota,

I believe you’re missing the point entirely.  The point is that the Druplicon is not now, nor has it EVER been our logo.  It is our mascot, and if that subtlety is lost on you, think of it in terms of your school mascot.  He is allowed to be wacky (encouraged) because he’s the spirit of the community… he however is NOT the school logo.  The school logo has a place, and that place is NOT running around on the grounds of whatever game being wacky… that’s the mascot’s job.  Just as Druplicon is altered from one Drupalcon to the next, and from one group’s need to the next (drupal dojo, drupalchix, etc).  That IS Druplicon’s job… not the job of the logo.  If the occasionally appear together, this is no coincidence, but it is not to be confused with a “logo” in it’s totality.

With all of that in mind, a logo, by contrast, has a need to be protectable, alterable but only in a well documented/planned way, and largely, should be static overall.  The logo’s job is to stand as the representation for the product (as opposed to the community).  Drupal’s logo has a need to be Trademarked for numerous legal reasons… a trademarked Druplicon would hurt the community as it needs to flexibility to change from one venue to the next… if it were trademarked there’d be people running around going “YOU CAN’T USE IT THIS WAY!!! IT’S AGAINST THE TRADEMARK.” Which is exactly what we WANT for the Drupal logo… not our mascot.

I hope this clarifies a bit the needs of the community vs the needs of the product.  We CAN have our cake and eat it too, but it requires the community at large to trust that the Drupal Association has our best at heart.  And as a non-DA member, and someone who does understand “corporate identity” I can vouch, this is what we need to be doing.  So let’s leave Druplicon out of this, and focus on the task… i.e. our Logo (logotype, whatever).

Hi EclipseGc, thanks a LOT for your feedback.
Hmmm… I understand and do see where this new wave of change is coming from. Surely the logic is sound!

Some musings/ponderings though :
- If Drupal has been so successful over the years without a logo, what about a really “new” business approach without a logo and adopting ( for the first time ) a mascot .... if no one has done this before or if this is not ‘rule’ of the day, what about changing it (like stepping on the moon first time)
- there can be two mascots then, one for the community and one for the product
- why such craziness? probably because having the eyes and mind set on Drupal and asscociated png/gif/jpg ( whatever be its name, icon/logo/mascot) the NEW design actually appears very cold and non-embracing type to me
- if the need be so and certainly this “logo” is going to happen then please INVENT a new font and shape rather than cuts or alterations of existing ones, which means what is actually needed a skilled and genius fontographer/calligraphist
- a collage of existing fonts ( or of fonts in variation) and oft-repeated splash/swish - does it do justice ??

Once again - these are just ponderings, perhaps personal ones.

BTW, just one more pointer :
the face/the-now-so-called-mascot/whatever was part of the logo ( logo.gif of Drop/Drupal ) when the drupal was growing as a community and so-called ‘product’ approach was not there. We knew this face ( or its variations ) as part of the logo ( logo.gif) and not as ‘mascot’

Please have a look : http://web.archive.org/web/20011215004102/www.drop.org/themes/marvin/images/logo.gif

I prefer with d and no splash.

The splash is very NBCish. There must be some strange connection about that: this old NBC logo had Druplicons!

Brother, I wud prefer without splash.

Too many splash logos in the market

http://www.signupgraphics.com/images/logos/splash%20logo.jpg
http://www.johnnymilleradventures.com/Logos/cs_logo_07.png
and more .

Minesota,

Whether or not the Druplicon was ever part of the logo is unimportant, as it is released under the GPL, and as such cannot be trademarked.  Since it’s released under the GPL, it’s in the community (and alterable, like our code) an official logo would not be.  Herein lies the issue.  We can’t alter Druplicon to be the logo (and shouldn’t) because he is GPL’d like our code.  You can’t trademark something that’s GPL’d like that, and as such we need something different.  And even if we COULD it would be the wrong move because Druplicon is the community mascot and is there to be altered as needed by the community.  The logo’s explicit purpose is to represent the product.  We shouldn’t consider mixing these solutions, and a second mascot is worse, because now we’re confusing EVERYTHING.

A logo is the proper move.  Let’s focus on that and leave Druplicon out of this.

How about making the “r” a faucet that pours a water drop into the “u”? This creates the opportunity to use the same water drop as the main logo.

Thanks EclipseGc - these were just thoughts and discussions, no hard issues. How is Drupal TM-ed then, which is also released under GPL ? Will the logo have some other name than Drupal ?

On the move for logo and in support for it, I already said we need some NEW font - some innovative fontographer/calligraphist to work in tandem with web designer. Shall we re-think in these lines ?

Minesota,

That’s exactly what Mark has… the ability to do all of those things.  That why he was selected (amongst other reasons).  An artist w/o the ability to deliver on ALL deliverables wouldn’t have been an option.  Most classically trained Artists have a good (great) background in corporate identity (what we’re doing now) as well as typography (also what we’re doing now).  As such, Mark won’t (in all likeliness) be needing extra help in this area.  If you have particular gripes with the typeface or its usage, this would be the forum to address exactly that.  I’m sure Mark is quite capable of taking the input and directing the final product in the correct direction.

As for Drupal… the product is GPL’d however the name is TM’d just as the logo will be.  I can understand how this might be confusing.

Hope that clears it up.

"You can’t trademark something that’s GPL’d”
“As for Drupal… the product is GPL’d however the name is TM’d”

These are indeed contradictory. If the name ‘Drupal’ can be used by the community and variants/distortions of it be widely used such as DrupalCon ( conference) etc, and yet this can be trademarked, the same applies to the Drupal face icon or logo - it can be used by the community and yet a specific variant of it be trademarked.

This “however” in your statement can be applied, imho, to the drupal face that was in the drupal logo integrally and initailly (eg, as it was in Drupal 2 etc) and which is now wrongly and “suddenly” being promoted as a mascot. Mascots are not just picture files on computer but they are available as dolls or inanimate models or humans dressing up like that in shows and events. The Drupal face never used to appear in these ways - neither it was sold as toys or dolls like elePHPant elephant stuffed toys.

Another point to think is that commercial ‘products’ or even if the same Drupal is distributed or service-packed for a price it should have a different name like Green Hat Drupal, Duse Drupal etc - shouldn’t it be ? This name can then be trademarked and fancy logos be applied.
The name Linux is tradenamed and there is no commercial aspect to Linux kernel ( meaning its a free-of-price download) - similarly Drupal kernel or core can remain as such while the ‘product’ and ‘services’ can be called xyz__Drupal.

I also endorse that artists or webdesigners are not essentially typographists - and they need not be so. But having an orginal typographer or font creator would be good, actually befitting. At least such offer could have been made public. Has Marked ‘created’ any font ? What is the name of that ?

Staying ‘on-topic’ : its no splash for me. As the splash appears as distorted copy of something used by others before. Better to use something no one has used before or incorporate what drupal already has.