I have no strong opinions on the symbols but it's a funny coincidence that they chose the oak leaf, while the Apaches have been fighting for 20 years protecting their sacred grove of ancient oaks in Arizona called Oak Flat from being destroyed for a copper mine: www.apache-stronghold.com
It's quite a story - first congress voted 8 years in a row against giving the land (which was protected by treaties and subsequent designations as a protected area) to the mining company, then the land transfer was snuck in at the last minute on the big defense spending bill, and then has been in court since. Really impressive that they've held it off for this long. https://www.apache-stronghold.com/legislative-context
> So why would we change it? As a non-Indigenous entity, we acknowledge that it is inappropriate for the Foundation to use Indigenous themes or language.
To want to cleanse references to "Indigenous motifs or symbolism" as a community value brings about a touch of shame in me. It mostly weakens cultural memory and the ability of later generations to stay connected to the worldviews that these motifs carry. Taking away the symbols is like taking away the memory-keeping. Without them, it's much easier to forget the culture.
I have no strong opinions on the symbols but it's a funny coincidence that they chose the oak leaf, while the Apaches have been fighting for 20 years protecting their sacred grove of ancient oaks in Arizona called Oak Flat from being destroyed for a copper mine: www.apache-stronghold.com
It's quite a story - first congress voted 8 years in a row against giving the land (which was protected by treaties and subsequent designations as a protected area) to the mining company, then the land transfer was snuck in at the last minute on the big defense spending bill, and then has been in court since. Really impressive that they've held it off for this long. https://www.apache-stronghold.com/legislative-context
It's a nice logo, but...
> So why would we change it? As a non-Indigenous entity, we acknowledge that it is inappropriate for the Foundation to use Indigenous themes or language.
To want to cleanse references to "Indigenous motifs or symbolism" as a community value brings about a touch of shame in me. It mostly weakens cultural memory and the ability of later generations to stay connected to the worldviews that these motifs carry. Taking away the symbols is like taking away the memory-keeping. Without them, it's much easier to forget the culture.
Did no one else want to puke at the syrupy text of the announcement?
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45216321
This is the source of that submission.
The new logo is cool asf
I liked the old logo better.
That's nostalgia. The old logo looks really ugly and is very outdated.
>To clear the old logo of indigenous motifs or symbolism
I'm not supporting it for this reason, if that matters.
if they want to virtue signal, release the open office trademark back to the rightful community.
I think it's a pretty nice logo as far as modern logos go. More than just modern sans serif.
I keep thinking of Apache Jackrabbit Oak. Begat ~2004. https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/architecture/overview...
> Oak - The big picture TODO: Explain concepts: MVCC, Oak modules and plugins, key APIs, …
Yeah huh