I agree with his objection to the first. It's easy to see the logo with the logotext and read it as "URL" instead of "curl."

The logo for the accepted version is the best of the 3, in my opinion. However, when looking at it combined with the logotext it looks kind of odd in that the slashes are leaning away from the word curl so prominently. (#2 doesn't have this problem). No matter, though, it is a big improvement.

Do you mean the one with the :// which precedes the "curl"? If so, I agree. The first version was too complex and inconsistent, but the third version played it too safe. I also agree with another poster who said that the accepted logo has more in common with PCBs than URLs.

I agree this one is far more elegant and IMO also more meaningful - the dots in it could be nodes in a network.

http://archive.li/TRDMX/c9b30e15b66869f9d7c9f825e9771b3b9828...

the important part of the name is URL after all. Logos are always tricky though; everyone wants to have input, which means you often end up with things like the last logo with lots of ideas mushed together.

I have yet to see a logo redesign which some designer didn't criticise.