-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pedro Sanchez's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 7/26/2007 12:48 PM: Somebody on the VP just opened a can of worms here. So it is probably a non-problem, but we should keep this in the back of our minds just in case somebody /else/ does the same. As for the proposed solution, if enough people complain about Wikimedia logos being on Commons, then I'm for this solution. - -- Charli (vishwin60/zelzany/O) Ostrich: 40 MPH; Grizzly Bear: 30 MPH; Cheetah: 70 MPH; Governor of Pennsylvania: DON'T ASK

2007/7/27, Daniel Kinzler &lt;daniel(a)brightbyte.de&gt;de>: I cannot see why the current situation is hypocrytical. The logos are not part of the Commons repository, they are uploaded to the Commons servers just because of operative/technical/logistical needs. But that is clearly stated that: "*notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL.* Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the *Wikimedia visual identity guidelines<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity… * and requires permission." The only problem that I see is that in projects that do not allow non free content (such as eswiki) users tend to put Wikimedia copyrighted logos in the articles about Wikimedia projects (i.e. the main image in http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). This is a violation of the project's policy (in this example, eswiki policy) but there is no reason to quit them from Commons because it is not a violation to use it in other places (i.e. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:Commons). In this case, just a bigger and better explanation on the logos page could make things clear. Something like "This is non free, if your project does not allow nonfree images in articles, please do not use this image". Barcex.

On Friday 27 July 2007 12:23:28 Daniel Kinzler wrote: Indeed that's the very problem. And relying on moral rights (which could be an option too) is a bit too weak for the Foundation. But I have a third option: How about creating a "community" icon? An icon that can be used by anyone who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project? I'd say: Interested talented people just start creating a Wikimedia Commons community icon which is reusable under CC-BY (any version). Everyone who think using it for his work is apropriate can use it. I envision a relaxed logo alternative like the famous Tux logo. Tux is perfectly associated with Linux (and only "Linux" the word is a trademark) but none makes any trouble if someone reuses it in another context for his own purpose. So let us create a cute Wikimedia Commons community logo and then we'll see which logo wins, and which logo makes a stronger and more living Commons brand: The current restriced one or the free one. And after this bold test the Foundation can evaluate if they want a second community icon for Wikipedia and others too or if it is better beeing more relaxed with the current Wikipedia icon. :p Cheers, Arnomane

On Friday 27 July 2007 19:45:32 geni wrote: Oh no. Please not this silly manga-girl! I don't want a digital girl for male geek Wikipedians that dream of a cute girlfriend. Arnomane

On Friday 27 July 2007 20:18:13 geni wrote: Although funny these logos aren't exactly reusable outside a somewhat ironic context. I'd like a logo you can use for representation and recognition, like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tux.svg Arnomane

On Friday 27 July 2007 20:39:34 Benjamin Esham wrote: Stop stop stop! I am _not_ talking about replacing the official Logo of Commons you can see in the left of the Commons web site. I am not talking replacing the official brand. I am talking about a serious inofficial "Commons community and supporter icon" that anybody can use without formal agreement. Everyone that thinks he and his own innitative keep the spirit of our project may use it if he or she likes. So how about a cartoonish flower icon? I can only recommend reading a bit about Tux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux This is an ideal example of a strong community driven icon. There is no doubt many people abuse it but overall the benefit of this free icon outwheights this by far. They simply can't do it even if they wanted. CC-BY and friends cannot be revoked. Sure. Aren't wikis dangerous cause anybody can write bullshit into them? I particular dislike any corporate identity bullshit. I like usability and clear consistent design of web pages, printed works and other stuff but not more. I am not talking about replacing the Commons Logo for offical authorized activities. However I am realistic: I know that we simply have no chance convincing the Foundation on the current logos, because simply there are unauthorized people that try to speak on their behalf. Although I dont like the approach of the Foundation I acknowledge that they are acting with the best ideals. Arnomane

Daniel Arnold wrote: I had the same idea, but inspired on Debian, who has a copyrighted icon and a free icon, instead of Tux. My first idea was a wikipedish logo of a circle with a W in it (with the other letters surrounding?). Much more flat, less visual identity, but you can still associate them.

These are at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos But that doesn't solve the problem that Wikimedia needs somewhere to upload its official non-free logos. Angela

On Saturday 28 July 2007 21:32:34 David Gerard wrote: Alternatly it could widen the personal horizon if you look _who_ actually makes such troubles. Almost everytime not core Wikimedia Commons people, but random Wikipedians that think they know everything better. Many Commons people are just sick of certain debates reapearing again and again (and beeing made responsible for it). Cheers, Arnomane.