[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)

[teun spaans]

If these potential logos are not on a free license, as you suggest (and i
have no reason to assume you are wrong), then they should certainly not be
moved to commons. Meta seems like a correct place.
If the rules of meta can be changed so that these copyrighted images can
stay hosted there?
Perhaps a template with the contest info might be useful. One way or the
other, it would be a good thing if the copyright status could be determined:
does the foundation have all rights? Do the creators still have all rights
reserved?

teun spaans

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 February 2010 19:14, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2010/2/20 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
> >> On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all
> other
> >>> submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
> >>
> >> Evidence?
> >> --
> >
> > Evidence of what? At the beginning on all Wikipedias as well as meta
> > there were no license templates at all. It was just assumed that all
> > original content is under GNU FDL - both text and pictures. The idea
> > of license templates for media files was created to provide
> > possibility to use pictures on other free licenses and those which are
> > public domain. Following the copyright paranoia in such the manner you
> > could ask if there is any evidence that articles in Wikipedia are
> > legally under GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA. Do we have any evidence that users
> > agreed for the license conditions?  How many of them read the
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use ? And how many of
> > those who read Terms of Use followed the links to the licenses legal
> > code or at least general explanation of their practical consequences ?
> > In case of text content it is simply assumed with no evidence at all
> > that editors agreed. Moreover even if the uploader to Commons chooses
> > the license in upload form do we check if he/she knows and understand
> > its conditions? So, it is all assumed with no evidence at all.
> > Strange?
>
> The logo contest was specificaly non standard with copyrights not
> being released so that the logo copyright could be held exclusively by
> the foundation. The various wikimedia logos (except the mediawiki one)
> are not under a free license.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>