Fwd: rejecting ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu

Dylan McCall dylanmccall at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 07:37:00 BST 2009

On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:19 +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Evan Dandrea<evand at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, I still have not found a way to do image blurring via
> >> CSS, so we may not even be able to go down that road anyway.  I'll try
> >> to determine a desirable alternative solution with legal though.
> I've come across this, but my javascript-fu is lacking and I've been
> unable to get it working thusfar.
> http://www.webveteran.com/portfolio/demos/reflector/
> Legal got back to me, and if we find some way to make the javascript
> approach work, we'll be in line with the license terms for the Firefox
> logo.  They did however request that we respect the branding used for
> Firefox on the CD image, as some OEM CD images use an unbranded
> Firefox.  I'll start a discussion with Alexander Sack, of the Mozilla
> packaging team in Ubuntu, about how to best handle that.

Oh, cool! I was actually looking at that same javascript solution a few
days ago, alongside the GIMP stuff. If you can figure it out, I'll
consider you a magician :)
Still, I'm starting to like this GIMP solution quite a bit. I tweaked
the reflections a bit so that the blur is somewhat stronger vertically.
I think the effect is pretty useful to hide the seams, especially for
those icons that try to look 3D (where the reflection rather destroys
that effect).

Another option for Firefox: simply ship the unchanged icon as it comes;
it's, uh, magically invisible at certain angles, thus not reflected.
That will deal with some of the trouble and avoid the haziness with the
"just do it dynamically" approach, where I feel we are following the
trademark guidelines to the letter but not really following their
intent. In the worst case, we can always use a generic icon (maybe the
official unbranded Firefox globe one, if there's a version over 128x128
pixels somewhere) or simply talk about something else on the expectation
that people will see "Firefox Web Browser" in the menu and have some
vague idea what it does anyway (albeit without the extra incentive to
check out extensions).

The OEM images thing is troublesome. Thanks for pointing it out. I guess
strings would need to change, too... except I don't totally understand
how the OEM images work. Would they be shipping a different version of
the Ubiquity data packages and everything, or the same one we have in
normal Ubuntu? (Would it be possible to just facilitate changing this at
build time, which could be done through a system of horrifying but
functional hacks, or do we need to do it somehow during use?)
Looking forward to Alexander's thoughts :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-installer/attachments/20090806/66fc7745/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Ubuntu-installer mailing list