> You have gained because now there is an subconscious association between Sony and KDE.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think those of us at KDE would find it desirable to have that association in people's minds. I would actually say that would be a negative.
> Well, for those that even recognise that it is KDE artwork to begin with.
So only artwork which has saturated the public eye warrants protection?
Oh, no, I surely think that Sony did wrong and needs to admit the mistake but that picking and choosing one's battles might be more appropriate here.
I disagree with the author's blog post on making a big stink and "suing them for all they are worth". Yes, maybe just a saying that everyone understands the meaning to but it doesn't lent any credibility or help justify the issue at hand. Which is Sony used the artwork.
When people start tossing around hyperbole it doesn't help, it hinders.
I have less compassion for KDE over this because of the way the blog author worded this. Had the author approached this in a more profession manner than spouting off at the mouth I would be more onboard.
Is it hyperbole, really, when the same argument would be applied in the opposite direction?
I know that KDE somehow has a reputation for quiet professionalism [1], but I don't think that should extend to a developer's personal opinion, nor do I think that pointing out the hyperbole of someone else is itself an example of hyperbole. Especially when the hyperbole is so obviously hyperbolic!
The blog author is asking the community [KDE] a question, not acting as if his opinion represents the community. He's talking to me and my fellow developers, via an open letter.
KDE is a much looser community than you may be used to seeing within open source projects. You seem to be projecting to see an alpha dev who's looking back at his friends saying "What should we do with this one?" with a grin on his face and a plot in his mind. But that's not what's going on, and that's not what someone in KDE would see. What you see on the tin is all that's going on.
A KDE developer's opinion is implicitly his or her own and no one elses.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think those of us at KDE would find it desirable to have that association in people's minds. I would actually say that would be a negative.
> Well, for those that even recognise that it is KDE artwork to begin with.
So only artwork which has saturated the public eye warrants protection?