On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The Cunctator writes:
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has
no logical sense. A
"free"
license is a copyright license.
The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free
licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses.
And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make
sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we
distribute free content.
Most companies have a justification to use copyright to protect their
logo. WMF's justification is to promote free content. But that
doesn't make the logos free content.
If I understand correctly, Sv.Wp is applying the same standard to
Wikimedia logos as they apply to any other logo.
By the way, check out
<http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo>. I hope no one
thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo
without a license.
That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of
originality. Why do they do not need a license?
--
John Vandenberg