On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Could you restate this in a way which was not personally insulting to Mike, and by implication to the Foundation as an organization? Mike has been at the forefront of liberalizing open access to information and the open content movement for at least 23 years that I've known him. Despite that, it's his job to see that the Foundation finds an acceptable balance point between freeing all information we can, and not being sued into oblivion by someone whose legitimate copyright we infringe. The Wikipedia project can't practically survive without a Foundation to take some legal responsibility and help keep the lights on / servers running. We are not Wikileaks - and even they have found some limits on what they can get away with, though those are fortunately loosening over time. I can believe Mike might under some circumstances make a mistake, but assuming he's acting unreasonably or without regard for open content is assuming bad faith in the worst way. It's not called for and not helpful. Asking what happened, or trying to promote discussion on something that happened, are fine and reasonable. Just outright assaulting the Foundation and Mike is not. Please don't do that here. Criticism can be done constructively and in good faith. Thank you. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Hoi, The question is not so much what you believe but very much the reputation Mr Godwin has. In my appreciation he has an excellent reputation based on the many relevant jobs that he has had in the past. There are not many people who are associated with a "law" that is named after them. When you consider the relevance of the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects, the number of jurisdictions that are associated with Wikipedias because of a language that is associated with that country it is really amazing that there are so few lawyers working for the Wikimedia Foundation. Mr Godwin is the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation, he is not your lawyer, he is not the lawyer of the project where you feel at home. His job is to ensure the legal prudence of the WMF and keep its projects safe. When you feel that certain decisions of the WMF are wrong, your best line of action is to go to a lawyer that practices law in the relevant jurisdiction explain your case and have him talk to Mr Godwin. Indeed at your cost, he is after all your lawyer. Finally as it seems to be necessary to understand Latin in order to read your rant, I want to use that language with "Cave canum". What I know of that language is thanks to those fine Gauls immortalised by Underzo and Goscinny. Brassica is translated in apekool in my language but I am not sure that translates well. Thanks, GerardM On 3 June 2010 01:13, Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

On 3 June 2010 00:13, Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com> wrote: You mean the Technical University Munich logo? The problem is that the image servers are in the US and under US law I can see a case being made for the logo being subject to copyright. -- geni