On 11/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/14/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/13/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_logo_mosaic/ConstructionNotes (this gorgious new logo)
Doesn't that violate the copyright of the logo?
Anthony
fr: Dans sa grande mansuétude, la Fondation autorise l'usage de ce dérivé...
en: authorized for non commercial uses...
ant
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
When I first wrote this it said GFDL. Now it says "Original logo copyright Wikimedia Foundation. This picture is made of the hundreds of free licenses of the images used to make it. Screenshot under the GFDL (?)"
Which is a big contradiction. The logo is not under a free license, so a derivative of it can't be under the GFDL. And many of the images are under copyleft licenses, so derivatives can't be under a non-commercial license.
Yeah, yeah, it's such a small deal, who cares... Considering the nature of this project the answer should be "we do".
I am the one who changed it. There is no *right* license for that "thing". The screen shot is what it is, ie. a screenshot, so no GFDL applies. If anything, it's a Foundation copyright (to the screen shot) or actually, probably a fair use, under the label "tribute" or some such thing.
The live mosaic, however, is "live" and happens to be a bunch of pictures under free licenses patched together on a page to form the Wikimedia logo. So you can't apply a "Foundation" copyright to something that's made of hundreds of different licenses. The pictures in the "live mosaic" are independant from each other, so there's no reason why they should not keep their licences.
Hence the somewhat puzzled licensing information *I* put on that page.
Delphine