csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Personally, I think we should remove the image. We don't *need* it so we can just remove it. The article might not have a nice graphic, but so what? The license is too constrictive. I might even list it on Images
This is nuts. Here's the license, for anyone just tuning in:
---begin license--- IPU Logo License Version 1.0, November 18, 2003
Copyright (c) 2003, Tim Ahrentløv (ta@invisiblepinkunicorn.com) All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use, with or without modification, for commercial and non-commercial purposes alike, are permitted provided that the IPU logo is used to represent atheism.
THE IPU LOGO IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE IPU LOGO, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. --- end license ---
1) While you're trying to delete the image because of its extraordinarily liberal license that poses NO practical problems for either Wikipedia OR anyone copying Wikipedia's content, ANOTHER IPU logo sits at [[Image:Ipu.gif]] and is linked in the article with no license at all under "fair use".
2) This license is, very similar to -- and if anything MORE liberal than -- any restrictions on trademarks, and we happily used trademarked images ALL THE TIME.
3) We use many, many copyrighted images under "fair use" that fall into the category of "questionable but probably fine". In this case, it's not questionable at all. This image is avalible to us under a perfectly reasonable license.
If we're going to start rejecting images avalible to us under liberal and trouble-free but non-GFDL-compatible licenses while accepting images that our rights to are questionable, people are going to think we're idiots, and they're gonna be right.