On 01/04/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image.
No, not in any significant way.
Please present your arguments for this claim.
I have never heard anyone inside or outside NASA make this image restriction claim, and though I'm not the most in the loop person there, I have significant business contacts in the agency and with journalists who cover spaceflight activities.
Because it is not an issue for normal journalists or normal NASA activities. Wikipedia is neither.
The interpretation that the meatball is some sort of free content contagion is novel to this group in Wikipedia, and the argument is prima facie ludicrous.
No it is a logical reading of the relevant statutes. If you have a problem with the relevant statutes I suggest you take the issue up with your congressbeing
Free content is good. Free content legalism to the point where you delete free content is insane.
The logo is not free content per any of the standard definitions.
I understand that image editing programs are widely supported across OSs so the removal of such logos should not present you with a problem.