On 29/01/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably this would be troublesome for projects linking to them, but if those projects allow "nonfree" images they could have local copies. And if they don't allow "nonfree" images they shouldn't be using the logos in the first place.
Better not turn up the discussion about the hallowed wikipedia logo's copyleft status... A group only ever looks consistent from the outside, and sometimes not even then.
Consistency is the something-or-other of foolish minds, as the saying goes. We make these rules for ourselves; they don't have to be consistent, don't have to be elaborately foolproof logical constructions, they just have to *work* - and if "works" requires seventeen exceptions to encompass stuff like logos and other inftrastructure, some rather verbose footnotes, and a "don't be silly" clause, then that's just reality intruding.
Frankly, what is demoralising about this whole charade is that we seem to have lost the ability to tacitly ignore things - do we really have nothing better to do?
The licensing of the wikipedia logos is a reasonable subject to discuss I think. I had a warning and a deleted image which contained a wikipedia screenshot that I made to demonstrate a bug with a template! Not sure if it was the wikipedia and firefox logos that were to blame, but either way both organisations take their trademarks way too seriously. Wikipedia has an overall goal to provide information and media for free, but touch the logo and the pounce on you. Doesn't seem right to me.
If the exceptions have a realistic focus and don't practically damage the overall goal (or the public perception of wikipedia, like the logo issue would if the public knew they could never touch it due to copyright), then they won't cause too much of a fuss. Copyleft isn't meant to have corporate exceptions, that is the point, and wikipedia just doesn't get it in this one little case. Which is why it is brought up as a clear case of trying to go both ways at once and stretching oneself without making it obvious to people.
Having a stated mission of free knowledge, making a point of talking about other sites for copyrighting their images while only stating the mission, and then copyrighting ones own images, is nonsensical by even the most trusting exception handler. It would be awfully ironic if wikipedia died out because it locked up its copyrights.
Peter Ansell