Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
Locked
 
|
After the discussion a while ago, I've come across the logo rather
frequently and found it was really cool (the one with the rainbow -- or balloon -- colors?). Who's done it actually? Is it ok to use the logo for commercial products? Any objections? Andre |
poweredBySmalltalk.png (7K) 
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:07:49 +0200, Andre Schnoor wrote:
> After the discussion a while ago, I've come across the logo rather > frequently and found it was really cool (the one with the rainbow -- or > balloon -- colors?). Who's done it actually? Is it ok to use the logo > for commercial products? Any objections? > > Andre This may be the creator: http://emaringolo.users.dolphinmap.net/artwork.php More here: http://www.smalltalk.org/smalltalk/Powered_By_Smalltalk.html And some nice ones here: http://www.whysmalltalk.com/graphics/index.htm It seems as though they are free to use. Chris |
RE: Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
It is something that started a few months before Camp Smalltalk 1. At
CS1, several people were bestowed as "knights of the square brackets" and have the t-shirts to show it. Those of us there should recall all the sword and bent knee pomp when Ralph Johnston was knighted. It kind of faded away afterwards, but the square brackets are still displayed on occasion. It was not "free to use". I think it was Travis Griggs and/or Joseph Pelrine that started it. Check with them to see what the use restrictions are, and what it takes to become knighted. Otherwise you risk the wrath of knights, or at least a copyright violation. Paul Baumann [|] -----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Kassopulo Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:49 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:07:49 +0200, Andre Schnoor wrote: > After the discussion a while ago, I've come across the logo rather > frequently and found it was really cool (the one with the rainbow -- > or balloon -- colors?). Who's done it actually? Is it ok to use the > logo for commercial products? Any objections? > > Andre This may be the creator: http://emaringolo.users.dolphinmap.net/artwork.php More here: http://www.smalltalk.org/smalltalk/Powered_By_Smalltalk.html And some nice ones here: http://www.whysmalltalk.com/graphics/index.htm It seems as though they are free to use. Chris -------------------------------------------------------- This message may contain confidential information and is intended for specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not represent the opinion of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), its subsidiaries or affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or guarantee. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and the recipient of this message is expected to provide safeguards from viruses and pursue alternate means of communication where privacy or a binding message is desired. |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
The STIC opened up the use of the logo. Whoever these 'knights' you
speak of are, I doubt they are too worried about other people using their logo. Of course, we're still supposing that these 'knights' even exist, whoever they may or may not be. Michael Paul Baumann wrote: > It is something that started a few months before Camp Smalltalk 1. At > CS1, several people were bestowed as "knights of the square brackets" > and have the t-shirts to show it. Those of us there should recall all > the sword and bent knee pomp when Ralph Johnston was knighted. It kind > of faded away afterwards, but the square brackets are still displayed on > occasion. > > It was not "free to use". I think it was Travis Griggs and/or Joseph > Pelrine that started it. Check with them to see what the use > restrictions are, and what it takes to become knighted. Otherwise you > risk the wrath of knights, or at least a copyright violation. > > Paul Baumann [|] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: news [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Kassopulo > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:49 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo > > On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:07:49 +0200, Andre Schnoor wrote: > > >> After the discussion a while ago, I've come across the logo rather >> frequently and found it was really cool (the one with the rainbow -- >> or balloon -- colors?). Who's done it actually? Is it ok to use the >> logo for commercial products? Any objections? >> >> Andre >> > > This may be the creator: > http://emaringolo.users.dolphinmap.net/artwork.php > > More here: > http://www.smalltalk.org/smalltalk/Powered_By_Smalltalk.html > > And some nice ones here: > http://www.whysmalltalk.com/graphics/index.htm > > It seems as though they are free to use. > > Chris > > -------------------------------------------------------- > This message may contain confidential information and is intended for specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not represent the opinion of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), its subsidiaries or affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or guarantee. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and the recipient of this message is expected to provide safeguards from viruses and pursue alternate means of communication where privacy or a binding message is desired. > > > |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Baumann
On Sep 6, 2007, at 12:22, Paul Baumann wrote:
I did not open it up. I think Eliot Miranda coined the term? At least he's the first person I recall using it. In fact I never had the honor of being knighted. I think my implementation of Goto for Smalltalk forever struck me from the list of candidate knights, being beyond recall at that point. :) I jumped up and down when someone announced anyone could be a knight because now I too could join the ranks. I'm still wondering if there's perhaps a Smalltalk Mutant Powers Club I could join. :) -- Travis Griggs Objologist 10 2 letter words: "If it is to be, it is up to me" |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
On 9/6/07, Travis Griggs <[hidden email]> wrote:
<shakey voice>'tis a long time ago now but as I recall we had a meeting to celebrate the organization of CampSmalltalk in a restaurant (a Denny's or some such) right next to the motel we were staying in. We wanted to congratulate the organisers, especially Ralph whose idea it was and who was the force majeure behind it. Someone had a thing that looked like a sword (perhaps an umbrella?) so on the spur of the moment I grabbed it, ran up to the stage and "knighted" Ralph. What I don't reember is if the phrase " Knights of the Square Bracket" preceeded the knighting or followed it. In any case, Ralph arose, appropriately, as the first knight.</shakey voice>
|
|
|
Eliot Miranda wrote:
> > > On 9/6/07, *Travis Griggs* <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > On Sep 6, 2007, at 12:22, Paul Baumann wrote: > >> It is something that started a few months before Camp Smalltalk 1. At >> CS1, several people were bestowed as "knights of the square brackets" >> and have the t-shirts to show it. Those of us there should recall all >> the sword and bent knee pomp when Ralph Johnston was knighted. It >> kind >> of faded away afterwards, but the square brackets are still >> displayed on >> occasion. >> >> It was not "free to use". I think it was Travis Griggs and/or Joseph >> Pelrine that started it. Check with them to see what the use >> restrictions are, and what it takes to become knighted. Otherwise >> you >> risk the wrath of knights, or at least a copyright violation. > > > I did not open it up. I think Eliot Miranda coined the term? At > least he's the first person I recall using it. In fact I never had > the honor of being knighted. I think my implementation of Goto for > Smalltalk forever struck me from the list of candidate knights, > being beyond recall at that point. :) I jumped up and down when > someone announced anyone could be a knight because now I too could > join the ranks. I'm still wondering if there's perhaps a Smalltalk > Mutant Powers Club I could join. :) > > > <shakey voice>'tis a long time ago now but as I recall we had a > meeting to celebrate the organization of CampSmalltalk in a restaurant > (a Denny's or some such) right next to the motel we were staying in. > We wanted to congratulate the organisers, especially Ralph whose idea > it was and who was the force majeure behind it. > > Someone had a thing that looked like a sword (perhaps an umbrella?) so > on the spur of the moment I grabbed it, ran up to the stage and > "knighted" Ralph. What I don't reember is if the phrase " > Knights of the Square Bracket" preceeded the knighting or followed > it. In any case, Ralph arose, appropriately, as the first > knight.</shakey voice> My memory agrees with Eliot's recollections. And, we were all sober at the time! Later, Joseph Pelrine had some T-shirts made up with the [|] symbol and gave me one at OOPSLA in Vancouver (?). I was so thrilled that I have never worn the shirt. I did have a friend embroider [|] on all the shirts I wear to work. People sometimes ask me about the monogram, and then look at me even more strangely when I tell them what it means and where it came from. Reinforces my reputation, doncha know. Donald [|] PS JWARS/JAS is still alive, although on a much smaller scale, despite the best efforts of its enemies to kill it. > > -- > Travis Griggs > Objologist > 10 2 letter words: "If it is to be, it is up to me" > > > |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Lucas-Smith-2
Some of us are _born_ Knights. <grin>
At 03:25 PM 9/6/2007, Michael Lucas-Smith wrote: The STIC opened up the use of the logo. Whoever these 'knights' you speak of are, I doubt they are too worried about other people using their logo. Of course, we're still supposing that these 'knights' even exist, whoever they may or may not be. --
Alan Knight [|], Cincom Smalltalk Development
|
RE: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
.....and some of us are pawns.
;-)
--
Alan Knight [|], Cincom Smalltalk Development
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited when received in error. |
RE: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Knight-2
In fact, that all that "knight" terminology was first
used in discussions of conveying to Alan the right to use [|] in
his signature. There are no actual knights of course; that terminology is
defended by the real Crown. The idea was used in Ralph's thing and by
the people who thought it cool to refer to the group as "knights of
the square brackets". I never liked the phrase, and I rarely used the [|]
because of the association--no offense. The use of the phrase is recognized in
some circles though.
Back
to the real issue--using [|] for commercial purposes as perhaps a product
or company logo. The person who created the logo had conveyed the right to
use that logo to people that had demonstrated their support of Smalltalk.
It was at first a small group of devoted at CS1. After CS1 the logo was
opened for use by others that claim to support Smalltalk (which is when
Travis began to use it). I couldn't say how the rights were dispatched after
that. If "STIC opened up use of the logo" then STIC should be able to
identify the original author that gave the right to do that and what
restrictions apply. My personal experience is that persons conveyed the right to
use the logo were not given the right to re-convey that right to
others. Eliot's actions would seem to contradict that but I know that
Ralph's inclusion was planned in advance.
Usually a company will want to retain full rights to a
logo that they use. A company won't have that right with [|] because those
rights have already been conveyed to others. The meaning of the
logo was first "I've been recognized for my
support of Smalltalk". I understand the current meaning of the logo is
"I support Smalltalk". With that meaning, any individual or company can use the
logo but still can not own the logo. The "wrath of knights" comment was
tongue-in-cheek. However, a company should not expect Smalltalkers to stop
using the logo simply because they've started using it.
Paul Baumann [|]
From: Alan Knight [mailto:[hidden email]]
Some of us are _born_ Knights. <grin>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:16 PM To: Michael Lucas-Smith; Paul Baumann Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo Importance: High At 03:25 PM 9/6/2007, Michael Lucas-Smith wrote: The STIC opened up the use of the logo. Whoever these 'knights' you speak of are, I doubt they are too worried about other people using their logo. Of course, we're still supposing that these 'knights' even exist, whoever they may or may not be. --
Alan Knight [|], Cincom Smalltalk Development
This message may contain confidential information and is intended for specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not represent the opinion of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), its subsidiaries or affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or guarantee. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and the recipient of this message is expected to provide safeguards from viruses and pursue alternate means of communication where privacy or a binding message is desired. |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
Paul, thanks for your helpful summary.
Paul Baumann wrote:
Er, not really. My intention was to use the logo similar to "Intel Inside", i.e. to support the recognition of Smalltalk as a viable platform for commercial cross-platform development (which it has some potential for). Also, after years of excessive hard work customizing VW to become a foundation for "real" Win/Mac software, I feel the strong urge to reward myself by wearing a really exotic and edgy tatoo! "Yes, I did it with Smalltalk. And survived."
I never thought of using it as a company or product logo. I hope as many Smalltalkers as possible continue using it. The logo is great. Anyway, printing the logo on shrink-wrapped product packages alongside the Windows XP and MacOS X logos *is* commercial use. That's why I came up with the question. Cheers Andre -- Andre Schnoor Cognitone GmbH www.cognitone.com |
RE: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
IMO, using [|] to say "Smalltalk inside" is within the
spirit of the use of the logo. We are just talking about software
applications rather than people or companies. I think it is a good
idea. I doubt anyone would object to that. It may not be recognized
though.
Personally, I'd look for another way to say it without
"...and survived" because it invites the question of why Smalltalk should
be considered a challenge to turn into a success. Smalltalk is the easiest and
most dynamic programming environment--it can be a strategic advantage for a
company that makes use of those dynamics. Ease-of-use helps to negate the "few
programmers" argument that rings loudest now. I'd leave the misconceptions about
Smalltalk in the past and focus instead on building value for what it
can offer now. College students: the "few programmers" argument implies
latent demand without supply, it means you can make a living using a really cool
and rewarding programming environment. Companies that recognize the
advantages that Smalltalk can offer are the companies you want to work
for.
Paul Baumann
Paul Baumann wrote:
Er, not really. My intention was to use the logo similar to "Intel Inside", i.e. to support the recognition of Smalltalk as a viable platform for commercial cross-platform development (which it has some potential for). Also, after years of excessive hard work customizing VW to become a foundation for "real" Win/Mac software, I feel the strong urge to reward myself by wearing a really exotic and edgy tatoo! "Yes, I did it with Smalltalk. And survived." This message may contain confidential information and is intended for specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not represent the opinion of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), its subsidiaries or affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or guarantee. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and the recipient of this message is expected to provide safeguards from viruses and pursue alternate means of communication where privacy or a binding message is desired. |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:33, Paul Baumann wrote: Er, not really. My intention was to use the logo similar to "Intel Inside", i.e. to support the recognition of Smalltalk as a viable platform for commercial cross-platform development (which it has some potential for). Also, after years of excessive hard work customizing VW to become a foundation for "real" Win/Mac software, I feel the strong urge to reward myself by wearing a really exotic and edgy tatoo! You could always do: [:got | closure] -- Travis Griggs Objologist "It's [a spec] _the_ single worst way to write software, because it by definition means that the software was written to match theory, not reality" - Linus Torvalds |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Baumann
Paul Baumann wrote: Sure. I didn't mean to use that ironic claim. It was for the list only ;-) Anyway, application development with Smaltalk is a challenge. The path from the comfortable and productive R&D phase (second to none, as we all know) to a robust, marketable high-gloss product is still adventurous and risky. AFAIK, even after decades, there aren't many visible examples yet. I have strong hopes however (and am rather confident) that this will change. Andre |
RE: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo--marketable high-gloss products
|
|
Andre wrote:
"application development with Smaltalk is a challenge...a robust,
marketable high-gloss product is still adventurous and
risky"
Please elaborate on "adventurous and risky". If it
is a tool deficiency then I'm sure that will be
quickly overcome. I agree there aren't many examples of high-gloss
Smalltalk-based products. I think it is because Smalltalk is more suited for
evolving with a business--rather than being delivered as a packaged
product. At one time delivery options were playing catch-up with the
market; I don't think that is a technical constraint now. I suspect people
don't use the new tools and features because it is so easy to take the
more familiar/traditional route. The "Smalltalk can do that too" argument is
rarely followed with a compelling argument to use Smalltalk instead of...
I love it that fixes for bugs can be created
and deployed within seconds in Smalltalk--particularly in a GS/S
environment. With Smalltalk, long release cycles are primarily a fear-based
C.Y.A. constraint. Smalltalk applications evolve at the rate
that a company feels comfortable with because the cost of change
is low. Average Smalltalk code lacks much of the the complexity and risk
that would otherwise justify the high procedural costs of waterfall-like
development. At one extreme it comes to "here is the fix; it is already
tested in context, peer reviewed, and is low risk. How long do you want to
live with the bug before the fix is deployed?". The Smalltalk projects I've seen
in trouble tended to prefer a long delivery cycle purely for policy
reasons. Common policies value the bug more than the fix by
effectively saying that a known bug is less risky than having a
developer fix it.
The point I'm trying to make is that application
development with Smalltalk is more limited by human-factors than tool
deficiency. Tool deficiencies have a track record of being eliminated
shortly after they become known. Smalltalk provides inherent advantages
that are often undervalued by decision makers.
Paul Baumann
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:12 PM To: Paul Baumann Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo Importance: High ...
Anyway, application development with Smaltalk is a challenge. The path from the comfortable and productive R&D phase (second to none, as we all know) to a robust, marketable high-gloss product is still adventurous and risky. AFAIK, even after decades, there aren't many visible examples yet. I have strong hopes however (and am rather confident) that this will change. Andre This message may contain confidential information and is intended for specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not represent the opinion of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), its subsidiaries or affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or guarantee. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and the recipient of this message is expected to provide safeguards from viruses and pursue alternate means of communication where privacy or a binding message is desired. |
Re: Regarding [|] Smalltalk Logo--marketable high-gloss products
|
|
Paul Baumann wrote:
Software vendors need to create their own deployment tools and larger parts of the platform integration frameworks in-house, which is a big effort. While Smalltalk is generally well suited for this task, it still adds risk and significant cost to the project. What I am missing is a standard procedure like "put your resources here, the product configuration there, press F5 to build and your executables and installers are ready to ship" I'm inclined to say that all of the productivity advatange gained in the R&D phase is compensated by the final "make it feel real" and deployment phases. Fortunately, this has only to be done once, so there might be a long term advantange when releasing more products in the future.
I'm going to prove the opposite ;-) "Smalltalk can not do that" is a cheap excuse. Why? Smalltalk is a language and image-based IDE in the first place, among dozens of others. Its real deficiency is that it doesn't live up to its cross-platform promise yet, because it arrogantly insists on being the operating system itself. [snip]
If by "shortly" you mean decades, I would agree ;-) Double-clicking an image and connecting to a database might be sufficient for in-house ERP solutions, but it is definitely not enough for software that needs more interoperation with the OS, the user and other programs. Andre |
«
Return to VisualWorks
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |