On 11/14/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 11/14/06, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/13/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)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
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
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
