On 01/04/2008, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard
<ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni <geniice(a)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.
--
geni