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
for deletion. Then again, I wonder how long it will take for someone to
say I'm POV pushing because I'm a Christian?
TBSDY
Tim Ahrentløv wrote:
Hi Ævar,
Just to summarize my points. I will not change the license because:
a. People have begun using it under the current license - trusting that the
identity invested in the logo will not be tampered with.
b. Since the sole purpose of the logo *IS* to identify Atheism it does not
make any sense to demand the logo must be able to be used for anything else.
I find it suspicious that an encyclopedia service in this manner, actively
tries to alter the reality it wants to document.
c. The logo *is* free to be used for any purpose, commercially or otherwise.
d. Logo's from other companies like Microsoft are shown in Wikipedia, but
logos under a more lenient license like the IPU license are not allowed.
I sincerely doubt that there is any value in an encyclopedia service that
has taken upon itself, to purge identity symbols from its archives simply
because the originators insist that their company name, company logo or
whatever is protected from misuse. I would think that someone would choose
to defend the "Wikipedia" name or logo, should I choose to misuse them for a
competing service or for example a Porn site. I find this "Wikipedia"
politic very unfair and un-reasonable.
Now...
You mention that you think I'm "unlikely to achieve anything" by going
public with this mail correspondence because the "encyclopedia [is] designed
to be read and edited by anyone. And images and content which does not fit
the criteria is actively being purged out or replaced".
In that case I hope that people reading this will actively try put the logo
back, and complain about the person(s) that tries to purge the logo from the
archives from what I only can interpret as some misguided zeal.
Kind Regards,
Tim Ahrentløv
-----Original Message-----
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab@gmail.com]
Sent: 27. december 2004 15:57
To: ta(a)ateist.org; English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:36:48 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta(a)ateist.org> wrote:
Hi Ævar,
Thank you for the elaboration.
I still don't see the problem. The logo is not "unfree". It is very much
free, and even more so than permitted by a traditional GNU license - as I
recall it.
Well no, the problem is that it must be used to represent atheism
specifically, and could not be placed on the agnosticism article for
instance.
I do find it ironic that companies like Microsoft
that has a long
tradition
of fighting free licenses with their more
commercial and restrictive
approach, are allowed to have their logo on Wikipedia, just because they
belong to some other commercial or "ill-replaced" category.
As for the phrase "Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
ill-replaceable image like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg
it will get deleted [..]", you might as well
be telling me that the
Microsoft logos is allowed because they are Microsoft logos and the IPU is
not. It comes very close to telling me that the IPU logo, with the
identity
invested in it, pr. definition simply is not
allowed.
That might have been a bit quick of me, what i meant that some images
are more replaceable than others while some are unattainable under a
free licence, like the images on past events such as the Tiananmen
Square protests of 1989.
Make no mistake, we're currently seeking replacement for *all* our
none-free images, but since we have a large pile to go through it's
best to start at the simple things, like images of everyday objects or
not-so-notable subjects.
The way I interpret all this, is that I now have 2
options:
1. Define the IPU logo as a product, so that it would be strictly
commercial
and thus belong to a different set of rules.
2. Alter the logo license to allow it to be used for whatever purpose, and
thus totally obliterate the identity for which it was specifically
designed.
Neither of the above is fair to the general idea
of the IPU logo, and both
would be very unfair (if not legally impossible by now) because there are
people out there that has adopted the logo on the current license - and
for
what it represents. So I *cannot* alter the
license by now, and based on
the
explanation that I've been given so far, this
is luckily not something
that
I have any reason to regret.
Well actually you can, the copyright holder (you) can re-issue his or
her work under other licences at any time, all you would have to say
is "i grant permission to use this image under the GFDL" and it would
be so.
However since it's pretty clear at this point that you have no desire
to do so the purpose of this email is to better explain and elaborate
on my intentions and what i meant.
Because...
We are talking about a free encyclopedia service that actively wants to
alter the identity of the very object it sets out to document. It even
wants
to purge itself from facts of reality that does
not conform to some dogma
of
how the reality "should" be like. (It
gives me associations to when Libya
removed certain countries from the World Map *LOL*) These matters can
hardly
be to be a desirable attributes of a media type
from whom, one should be
able to expect objectivity.
As far as I understand you, this is not your doing ;-) You're merely
relaying some facts to me and I'm glad that you brought this matter to my
attention. Thanks.
I will cc this mail correspondence to the mailing list mail address you
provided to me, hoping that this matter can be settled in a prudent and
rational way. Should this process, in contrary to my expectations, result
in
the logo being removed, I will also upload our
mail correspondence on
www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, urging the visitors to complain about this
unfair and irrational ruling - and in the process I fear - undermining
Wikipedia's credibility.
You can of course list this email on your website asking people to
object, i have no objection to you posting our email correspondence
since it was known all along that this was not a private email.
However you're unlikely to achive anything by it, Wikipedia is
specifically, to quote the Wikipedia article: "an online multilingual
'copyleft' encyclopedia designed to be read and edited by anyone.".
And images and content which does not fit the criteria is actively
being purged out or replaced.
Thank you for your time.
Kind Regards,
Tim Ahrentløv
-----Original Message-----
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab@gmail.com]
Sent: 27. december 2004 13:32
To: ta(a)ateist.org
Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:34:19 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta(a)ateist.org> wrote:
Hi Ævar,
A simple search on Microsoft (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft)
shows
the Microsoft logo. A click on the Encarta link
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Encarta) shows the Encarta logo,
and
so on.
Are these logos under the GNU license? Can these logos be used for
whatever
purpose *you* may choose? Can they even be used at
all, without
Microsoft's
>written consent? I must admit I do not understand why the IPU license is
a
>problem for Wikipedia.
>
>Do you write to Microsoft or many of the other very restrictive license
>holders, informing them that their logos and identities *must* be
allowed
to
be used for any purpose imaginable? I find that
hard to believe. I also
find
it counterproductive to Wikipedia's role of
simply relaying facts.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, please allow me to doubt that your request
actually
conforms to the standards set by Wikipedia, and
please be aware that I
will
protest to this seemingly unfair and illogical
ruling.
Mvh
Tim Ahrentløv
Not all images on wikipedia are "free", some, like the ones you
mentioned are fair use logos, and others are under a none-commercial
licence and more others have other terms, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_by_copyright_status
There is an active movement to purge these images from wikipedia
and/or replace them with free ones which can be used without
restriction, a central staging area for this "operation" is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images , your
image got listed there (not by me) stating that it "imposes condition
that [the] symbol must represent atheism".
Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
ill-replaceable image like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg it will get deleted
on January 10, 2005 (30 days from the initial listing) unless we can
get a licence for it which is compatible with the GFDL.
The reason for doing this is because wikipedia is not simply a fact
relaying device, but a free encyclopedia, most other languages than
the english version of it do not even accept none-free images and en.
is actively phasing them out.
As for any "official" protest please make them if you desire to do so,
the english mailing list (wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org) would probably be
the best way to do so, however note that I'm in no way making any sort
of "ruling" on this, I simply saw the listing of the image on Possibly
unfree images and decided to E-Mail the author of it to request that
he grant permission to use it under a compatible licence.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab@gmail.com]
Sent: 27. december 2004 02:48
To: ta(a)ateist.org
Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:04:37 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta(a)ateist.org> wrote:
>Hi Ævar,
>
>The IPU license is available here:
>http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu_logo_license.htm
>
>I fail to see what this license lacks in regard to the more formal GNU
>license. Basically, the license allows *anyone* to use the logo for
*any*
>purpose (also commercial!) as long as it is
used to represent atheism.
The
>logo no longer belongs to me or
www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, but to a
>purpose. I don't see that it can get any better or more public domain
than
>>that.
>>
>>Please elaborate on what seems to be missing from this current
license,
>>>because I don't see any problems.
>>>
>>>Kind Regards,
>>>Tim Ahrentløv
>>>
>>
>>The problem specifically is the "used to represent atheism" part,
>>which does not give permission to use the image for porpoises other
>>than the representation of atheism which conflicts with PD and the
>>GFDL which allow the use of material for any porpoise.
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab@gmail.com]
>>>Sent: 26. december 2004 23:26
>>>To: ta(a)invisiblepinkunicorn.com
>>>Subject: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
>>>
>>>Notice: Consider this a none-private email.
>>>
>>>The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on wikipedia will be deleted on the
>>>next few days if it is not placed under a licence compatible with the
>>>GNU Free Documentation Licence or similar within the next few days,
>>>would you be willing to dual licence the image under the IPU Logo
>>>License and the GFDL so that it can be used in the article?
>>>
>>>URLs:
>>>IPU Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
>>>IPU Photo:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
