Fernando, as I read it you're pledging for freedom of logo-design. In that case, I agree fully.

Many people here have argued that it's a legal problem and have explained why. But there wasn't even a single message here from an MS person, besides the oneliner of Ken.

I wonder what they can argue against your stand that the words 'Powered by' are owned by no one. What might their argument be if I want to use a logo that only exists of the words 'Powered by Microsoft Visual Foxpro'?!

I'm now more interested in a reaction from MS. The arguments in defense of MS legal rights by people who only use one of their products and are in no way MS employee, have been heard too much already.



>>This new fox head is not one that MS 'owns', nor is it the one that MS wishes to have associated with its product called "Visual FoxPro".
>
>That, seems to me, may be the reason.
>
>>In summary, I have no clue. That's just my guess.
>
>I tried hardly to understand the term "re-brand" and it seemed to me that it means something like, re-making, modifying, re-issuing, re-inventing, subverting etc. If that's so, the logo that Michel created doesn't fit with my "fuzzy logic" translation of re-brand, because:
>
>a) the words "Microsoft Visual FoxPro" (just below the words "Powered by") are nothing more that the *exact* words found in the Visual FoxPro software product;
>
>b) the words "Powered by" are not property of anybody, AFAIK (lots of companies use this expression), and never before saw MS using them in conjunction with FoxPro;
>
>c) the fox picture, seemed to me to be an exact representation (a photo) of a fox, and not a stylized one, like the ones used by MS;
>
>d) never saw MS using lightning bolts in conjuntion with a fox logo.
>
>Think the idea by Plinio was great, the contribution by Michel was generous, the way things are being treated...
>
>Regards