Re: the PostgreSQL Elephant - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On Saturday 10 July 2004 14:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Things in favor of the Blue Elephant Head (BEH):
> 1) We've been using it for about 4 years not and it's getting some
> recognition as our emblem;

Nope.  We've been using it on the website at least for only 2 years.  And not
quite two years; according to the WayBack Machine it first appeared in March,
2003, which is not even a year and a half.  We used the other for at least as
long.

> 3) It's simple and easy to reproduce in a variety of sizes and on a variety
> of media, including t-shirts and stickers and 128-pixel web buttons.
> (this is a reason why I'd vote against the "elepant-diamond" or
> "elephant-breaking-through-wall" images.

This is quite true.

> Problems with the Blue Elephant Head:
> 1) PostgreSQL Inc. is also using it as a company logo.  This is obviously
> something we and they should have discussed an age ago; we'll have to deal
> with it now, I suppose.

They were, in fact, using it first.  The WayBack Machine gives a pgsql.com
page from August, 1999 with the BEH.
http://web.archive.org/web/19990826121148/http://pgsql.com/ is the link.

> Difficulty of Switching to Something Else:
> 1) The BEH is already being widely recognized as "ours".  This summer,
> we'll be distributing 2000 CDs and 100 T-shirts and I don't know how many
> flyers with the BEH on them.  So even were we to adopt a different logo
> today, people would still think of the BEH and see it around
> for the next year or more.

Probably more.  I personally don't mind giving Marc and PostgreSQL, Inc, that
sort of coverage.  After all, they have done a great deal for PostgreSQL the
project.  However, trademark might become an issue, too.  But that's
something I really don't want to deal with; there are people far better
equipped to deal with that sort fo question than I.

> 2) Even if we switched to a different *design*, we should keep the
> elephant concept for the reasons mentioned above, and because switching
> animals/objects would really confuse people and make them think that we'd
> had a project fork or something.  This would mean
> that we would need to seek new designs, as the Slony elephant is spoken
> for.   Does anyone have a copy of the elephant designs Cornelia submitted
> last year?

I'd like to see something like that.  I did see an elephant logo for a hosting
company in Linux Journal a couple of issues back, but it was red or orange.

The elephant per se is definitely attached to us.

> Overall, I'd prefer to stick with the BEH.  We have too much other
> stuff to do to deal with a logo search and evaluation now.  BUT, if we're
> even *contemplating* a new logo, we do *need* to do it now because a
> year from now the BEH will be really irremovable.

I think if the PgSQL Inc issue can be easily dealt with we should go with
being the least confusing.  I just personally prefer the diamond one; but
that is just my preference.  My preference and what is good for PostgreSQL do
not need to agree.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu