Hi,
>
> sajolida[at]pimienta.org:
> Thanks for raising the trademark issue as it honestly never occurred to
> us. I created a ticket to keep track of our discussion regarding that.
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/9047 Still, I'm not sure whether we
> are
> ready to consider such a debate.
>
I think it most likely should be trademarked, at least with a ™.
Dedicate a page on the website to this and we are good to go.
>
> I used the MS Style Guide because it was much more complete that the
> one
> from GNOME and I found it quite easily. I also thought that MS must
> have
> put a lot of resources, time, and expertise into it and felt like it
> was
> a good think to reuse that from them (with no strings attached).
>
They have. MS does a great job and has placed a ton of effort into
their guide, though they don't adhere to it much, especially in newer
and more conceptual projects, as they are always open to redefining what
things are.
>>
>> spencerone[at]openmailbox.org:
>> I would encourage us to be designing Tails, not GNOME or anything
>> else.
>> Using the styleguides as a reference or as insight into architectural
>> layout or element/text composition/usage is cool, but copying is no
>> good
>> and will lead to a product that is not Tails, eventually requiring
>> this
>> presumably avoided redesign. Also, it allows us to fall into the trap
>> of blind conformity, by using industry standards as resolutions though
>> common logic would instruct us otherwise.
>>
>
> Keep in mind that what we ship to our users is only 1% specific to
> Tails, all the rest is a wild mix of Debian, GNOME, GNU, whatever.
>
> See our statement on relationship with upstream:
> https://tails.boum.org/contribute/relationship_with_upstream/
>
Yeah, but this mostly, if not only, refers to the puzzle-like structure
of global FOSS and writing compatible code. Enhancing people's
experience by implementing more logical decisions into the interface is
a bit different, even if there are some requirements that need to be met
to keep it compatible as it flows back upstream.
>
> So we are copying 99% of what we do already and Tails couldn't exist
> otherwise. In that perspective, when we create the 1% of custom Tails
> stuff we need to pay attention to how it fits in the broader picture of
> the 99% that we copied. And as far as basic desktop application and
> integration goes, this is GNOME.
>
Yes. But there is a difference between copying the functional structure
of something and copying the style. Most cars share the same
engineering concepts, though the style is unique to each manufacturer
[ignoring the blatant copying to stay relevant, the same can be said
with computer hardware engineering and design, e.g., HP copying the look
of the MacBook a few years back].
Yes, most, if not all, of what we create should be able to go back out
into the FOSS world, but the style should be unique to Tails, even if it
is also released, which it should be. MacOSX is such a departure from
BSD, but, overlooking the intellectual property claims, it looks and
functions like MacOSX, even though a lot of what they have done could
benefit all BSD projects in terms of experience. I think it is in our
best interest to look into our own style guide, and to shoot for more
than a 1% uniqueness. This would be in regard to the text, visual, and
architectural elements of Tails. Even if we start by compiling what we
have used from GNOME and MS so far, as well as what we have had to
customize.
Wordlife,
Spencer
