On 29/01/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell
<ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Presumably this would be troublesome for projects linking to them, but
if those projects allow "nonfree" images they could have local copies.
And if they don't allow "nonfree" images they shouldn't be using the
logos in the first place.
Better not turn up the discussion about the hallowed wikipedia logo's
copyleft status... A group only ever looks consistent from the
outside, and sometimes not even then.
Consistency is the something-or-other of foolish minds, as the saying
goes. We make these rules for ourselves; they don't have to be
consistent, don't have to be elaborately foolproof logical
constructions, they just have to *work* - and if "works" requires
seventeen exceptions to encompass stuff like logos and other
inftrastructure, some rather verbose footnotes, and a "don't be silly"
clause, then that's just reality intruding.
Frankly, what is demoralising about this whole charade is that we seem
to have lost the ability to tacitly ignore things - do we really have
nothing better to do?
The licensing of the wikipedia logos is a reasonable subject to
discuss I think. I had a warning and a deleted image which contained a
wikipedia screenshot that I made to demonstrate a bug with a template!
Not sure if it was the wikipedia and firefox logos that were to blame,
but either way both organisations take their trademarks way too
seriously. Wikipedia has an overall goal to provide information and
media for free, but touch the logo and the pounce on you. Doesn't seem
right to me.
If the exceptions have a realistic focus and don't practically damage
the overall goal (or the public perception of wikipedia, like the logo
issue would if the public knew they could never touch it due to
copyright), then they won't cause too much of a fuss. Copyleft isn't
meant to have corporate exceptions, that is the point, and wikipedia
just doesn't get it in this one little case. Which is why it is
brought up as a clear case of trying to go both ways at once and
stretching oneself without making it obvious to people.
Having a stated mission of free knowledge, making a point of talking
about other sites for copyrighting their images while only stating the
mission, and then copyrighting ones own images, is nonsensical by even
the most trusting exception handler. It would be awfully ironic if
wikipedia died out because it locked up its copyrights.
Peter Ansell