Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jim <trodel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The only way the high quality can be assured, and
wikipedia can stay
reputable (with the press penchant for negative stories) is to clearly
identify what is the original source "wikimedia foundation"
data/information/articles and what is not.
But the information in question *is* original source wikimedia
foundation data/information/articles. However, the Wikimedia
trademarks, at least in theory (IANAL), disallow someone from making
that clear.
I think it's more the logo that's problematic. Factual attributions,
like "This is a distribution of Wikipedia content as of [x date],
selected in [y manner], packaged for the iPod" would be hard to
prosecute under trademark laws, just like Brittanica hasn't sued us for
having taglines at the bottom of some articles stating "This article
incorporates text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, a publication
in the public domain.".
-Mark