No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free"
license is a copyright license.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck <me(a)marcusbuck.org> wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and
logical. Logos are
copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's
plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the
Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to
claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they
thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just
intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does
everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The
Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible)
and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia
logos be any different?
Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l