The Cunctator writes:
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free" license is a copyright license.
The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we distribute free content.
By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license.
--Mike
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator writes:
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free" license is a copyright license.
The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we distribute free content.
Most companies have a justification to use copyright to protect their logo. WMF's justification is to promote free content. But that doesn't make the logos free content.
If I understand correctly, Sv.Wp is applying the same standard to Wikimedia logos as they apply to any other logo.
By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license.
That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of originality. Why do they do not need a license?
-- John Vandenberg
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org