Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.It was decided that for legal reasons, we can't include the official Drupal wordmark in the installer screen, see #605710: Decide on if and if so, how to implement the Drupal wordmark in core.
Now, #1337554: Develop and use separate branding for the installer replaced the Druplicon by a blue "Drupal" caption that slightly resembles the official wordmark but doesn't quite match it:
And exactly this is what is quite problematic IMHO, as it now - pardon me - looks like a random, cheap Drupal imitation or maybe an unofficial clone. In other words, it actually looks like a Trademark violation shipped with core.
One of the most pivotal branding laws is that wordmarks and logos must never ever be approximated.
So either we use the exact wordmark (which isn't possible) or we make sure that the caption doesn't match it too closely, so it doesn't even try or pretend to be the wordmark.
Options here are:
- Use black text as color instead of the Drupal blue
- Replace "Drupal" by "Drupal Installer" or "Install Drupal"
- both of these together
- probably more...
As at least something needs to remind people of the official Drupal project, adding back the Druplicon is being discussed in #2030027: Use the Drupal software logo in the installer. The two are interconnected, in that one decision influences the other, but in any case this here seems to be much more important. I expect some of you to disagree, but am still marking it critical, because I strongly believe core can't be shipped with this installer design.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #3 | Install Drupal.png | 345.3 KB | Pancho |
Comments
Comment #0.0
Panchofix spacing
Comment #1
LewisNymanThere has been no decision made in #605710: Decide on if and if so, how to implement the Drupal wordmark in core. Until a decision is made there, this issue is either a duplicate of that issue or postponed on it's outcome.
Comment #2
PanchoEven if no final decision might be made, this de facto violation of trademark usage has been committed.
Also, a critical bug may never be a duplicate of a normal task, so reopening.
Comment #3
PanchoThis touchup might be an improvement that doesn't change the overall appearance too much:
It might or might not be enough to assure we don't compromise either of the installer's credibility and the Drupal trademark.
Comment #4
Dries CreditAttribution: Dries commentedWhy don't we use the proper Drupal logo? The Drupal trademark that I own is for the word Drupal, not for the Drupal logo. From my point of view, there is no trademark violation here. There might be a license issue though, but I don't believe so either.
I'm also moving the status to 'major' as we wouldn't hold up the release for this. Hence, it is not a critical issue.
Comment #5
Pancho@Dries:
Are you sure?
Usage guidelines for Drupal Media Kit say:
And while you could relicense the wordmark logo to everybody, it probably wouldn't be a good decision. And including the wordmark logo in our GPLed code would exactly mean that: relicense the wordmark logo to everybody, for any use covered by the GPL.
Meaning: Everybody could use the wordmark for their own distributions, forks, for advertising their modules, modifying and abusing the logo in non-fair use ways. This could seriously mean, the Drupal wordmark being misrepresented.
And while GPL v3 has a "Section 7: Additional Terms" (though highly problematic), GPL v2 doesn't even have that.
Can't cover this into depth, but the bottom-line is that this is a very sensible decision.
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_t...
I think we should continue finding an immediate solution for this Trademark violation - as I'd still call it - in this issue here, until we possibly figured out a better way in #605710: Decide on if and if so, how to implement the Drupal wordmark in core.
Comment #6
Bojhan CreditAttribution: Bojhan commented@Panco I think you are making it sound a little bit more dramatic than it is. We purposely included the word Drupal, given its importance in branding the installer. It is nearly unpossible to not make that look like the wordmark (given its typographic styling), we have permission to use the word Drupal - other than giving it a serif font there is no way around it looking somewhat similar. You can merge with other words, but frankly that just makes it look crappier.
I don't really see this as a big issue at all, and the case you refer to is quite different. There is 1) no way around looking something like the wordmark (adding other words, is not differentiating), 2) we have permission to use the word Drupal, which is trademarked, 3) we are not including the actual wordmark with that causing licensing issues (which I thought was quite elegant).
So it comes down to your main issue, that it looks like the workmark - and I do not see any way around that. Additionally I see no reason to duplicate the discussion, we are having in #605710: Decide on if and if so, how to implement the Drupal wordmark in core. Can we just postpone this and move all discussion there? This issue should be resolved, but there is no point in having two discussions.
Comment #7
PanchoRe #6:
If seen as non-critical, we can certainly postpone.
But I disagree with the assumptions that:
The other of the two aspects that it simply looks weird and unofficial, and that it simply doesn't comply with branding best practice (see also our own Usage guidelines), isn't critical, though. It's major.
Comment #7.0
Panchoslight rewording
Comment #8
tim.plunkettComment #9
gisleThe Drupal Wordmark is not code, it is an asset.
Including an copyrighted "all rights reserved" in a composite that also contain code licensed under GPL does not trigger the viral clause of GPL for that asset. The viral clause is only triggered for derivatives.
See comment #15 #1856762: Revisit and Redefine Drupal's Policy on hosting 3rd party files and/or files that is not strictly GPL for more about the legal implications of composites vs. derivatives.
Comment #10
jhedstromComment #11
bertboerland CreditAttribution: bertboerland commentedAs dries states, why not use the Druplicon instead of the wordmark?
Comment #12
LewisNymanDries was suggesting we use the wordmark. We removed the Druplicon from the installation screen because the primary audience (new users) had no idea what it was.
Comment #13
serg2 CreditAttribution: serg2 commentedre #12, is that a new decision or an old one?
The current "Installer Screen" shipping with 8 is... odd.
This is the first thing people who are new to Drupal will see, and to my eyes, lacks any kind of inspiration or progress or anything.
There are some really nice suggestions for the "Installer Screen" but they seem to waiting on a logo (Druplicon) to be decided from Dries: #2030027: Use the Drupal software logo in the installer postponed on #2057767: [policy, no patch] Revise the Druplicon logo, which has now lost it's "revisit before release" tag.
When 8.0.0 is released there will be videos, guides. tutorials etc all being created showing this screen. Does current installer screen really portray the correct image for Drupal?
(Maybe the wrong issue to put this comment in, couldn't decide where it fit best.)
Comment #14
LewisNyman@Lostandfound you can find a lot of the original discussion here #1337554: Develop and use separate branding for the installer
Comment #25
Gábor HojtsyClosing as duplicate of #2030027: Use the Drupal software logo in the installer, see #2030027-237: Use the Drupal software logo in the installer for more info. Will transfer credits there.