I think Mike has the right idea, but there is one issue I want to bring
up...
A lot of projects will do an ad-hoc derivative logo (Eg on Wikinews we did
an "ongoing story" one). How easy is it going to be to put these logos into
the right place?
Brian.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Casey Brown
Sent: 25 August 2007 22:33
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia logos on Commons
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Kat Walsh <mindspillage(a)gmail.com>
I should add that I'm all for making the logos available from some central
location for WMF and chapters to use. I just don't think they should be
lumped together with Commons -- that's a recipe for misunderstanding.
--m
On Aug 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
Some guy nommed all the WMF logos on Commons for deletion because they were
"not free" (Commons only accepts freely-licensed images). You can see the
full convo in the Foundation-l archvies.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Has anyone asked Mike's opinion on the discussion? Last I checked he was
working on trademarks (and probably logos too). I'm sure he'd find this
somewhat interesting.
On 8/25/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Brian wrote:
I think Erik really got to the heart of the
issue. If this _were_ an
issue,
it boils down to the fact that you need to have
legal protection of
certain
digital media that is somewhat stricter than your
philosophy usually
permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
(They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
See:
http://www.debian.org/logos/
IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
discussions about consistency.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l