Is PhatNav violating our copyright, or enjoying the benefits of the GPDL?
All content Copyright 2003 - PhatNav and Diagonal Media Group Inc. (Except as noted on pages containing separately licensed content.) All rights reserved.
PhatNav, the PhatNav logo & characters are trademarks owned by Diagonal Media Group Inc.
Privacy statement. Advertise with us.
The Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. It is offered as open source and is free to reuse according to the GNU Free documentation License
http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page
Just asking <== Uncle Ed
It is very poor form, at the very least, for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia". They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia, but they are not "A Wikipedia".
It is my understanding of trademark law that we need to police this to some extent, or we run the risk of, for example, Microsoft someday putting out a proprietary encyclopedia under our name.
--Jimbo
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Is PhatNav violating our copyright, or enjoying the benefits of the GPDL?
All content Copyright 2003 - PhatNav and Diagonal Media Group Inc. (Except as noted on pages containing separately licensed content.) All rights reserved.
PhatNav, the PhatNav logo & characters are trademarks owned by Diagonal Media Group Inc.
Privacy statement. Advertise with us.
The Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. It is offered as open source and is free to reuse according to the GNU Free documentation License
http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page
Just asking <== Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is my understanding of trademark law that we need to police this to some extent, or we run the risk of, for example, Microsoft someday putting out a proprietary encyclopedia under our name.
I'm not sure what you mean by "police this to some extent", but if I were you, I would have already officially threatened them legal action from the Wikimedia Foundation.
Aren't they legally required to fix this within 24 hours of notification? I notified them two weeks ago. I did it again just now (of course with a clear disclaimer that I am in no official capacity). Have they been officially warned yet at all? If not, it's about time.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "police this to some extent", but if I were you, I would have already officially threatened them legal action from the Wikimedia Foundation.
Well, as a friendly charitable open source free content project, it isn't our style to send nasty lawyer notes when appeals to good will and commonsense will work better.
I doubt if they meant any harm by it.
Aren't they legally required to fix this within 24 hours of notification?
I don't think there's any particular length of time.
I notified them two weeks ago. I did it again just now (of course with a clear disclaimer that I am in no official capacity). Have they been officially warned yet at all? If not, it's about time.
Can you send me a copy of what you sent to them, so that I can adapt the text and send it officially?
--Jimbo
Timwi wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is my understanding of trademark law that we need to police this to some extent, or we run the risk of, for example, Microsoft someday putting out a proprietary encyclopedia under our name.
I'm not sure what you mean by "police this to some extent", but if I were you, I would have already officially threatened them legal action from the Wikimedia Foundation.
Aren't they legally required to fix this within 24 hours of notification? I notified them two weeks ago. I did it again just now (of course with a clear disclaimer that I am in no official capacity). Have they been officially warned yet at all? If not, it's about time.
Although they do mention GNU-FDL at the bottom (in difficult to read dark blue on black) it seems to me that this should link to a text of the licence.
Ec