Got Hacking? Git Hacking.

Re:Got Hacking? Git Hacking. by getsat on Sunday January 30, 2011 @05:38PM (#2159401)

No need to do that, they've pointed out in the past that it's a stock image they've bought the rights to use and can not authorize others to use it.

I forget where I read this, but it was someone asking the same thing. I might have been on HN, actually.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Got Hacking? Git Hacking. by defunkt on Sunday January 30, 2011 @05:45PM (#2159420)

GitHub now owns the octocat art.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Got Hacking? Git Hacking. by tjogin on Monday January 31, 2011 @01:07AM (#2160497)

githacking left me with the impression that it was an official github thing, because of the octocat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Got Hacking? Git Hacking. by getsat on Sunday January 30, 2011 @06:15PM (#2159510)

Cool! Congrats on finally getting it. :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Got Hacking? Git Hacking. by escoz on Sunday January 30, 2011 @06:42PM (#2159590)

You guys should seriously think about allowing other projects to use the octocat when the projects are associated to github.

it would be a nice way of everybody having a common "icon", much like twitter has the bird.

I know people can link to github, but that's not always possible (mobile apps?) even though people use github..

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Got Hacking? Git Hacking. by Raphael on Sunday January 30, 2011 @07:16PM (#2159668)

Twitter previously used some stock bird art, but the logo was just the bubble letters. Now they have an original bird logo. But 3rd party Twitter stuff can use arbitrary bird art, or maybe the old stock one since it's unclear who owns it.

I think a good solution would be a new open license logo, like the Minefield logo as opposed to the restricted Firefox logo.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Got Hacking? Git Hacking. by chrisbaglieri on Sunday January 30, 2011 @05:48PM (#2159424)

@defunkt

We'll get on that ASAP. Nothin' but love.

[ Parent | on HN ]