Am Freitag, 23. Januar 2004 14:18 schrieb Jimmy Wales:
Ivo Köthnig wrote:
The last point should never happen, since it is not allowed to use the money in another manner as discribed in the statute of the "e.V.". If we change the statute (which is not that easy itself, since most members have to vote for the changes), we risk to lose the ability to collect money tax-free, in particular if we change it to make a lucrative income for ourselves.
I don't know if there is a way to make a contract, that the "e.V." is allowed to use the name "Wikimedia" as long as you allow this. (may someone should research this) May that would be a solution for you, Jimbo?
Yes, something along those lines is exactly what I have in mind.
I do not wish to stand in the way of progress. I only want to caution that we move slowly, carefully, and *together*.
Thats what I prefer too, maybe without "slowly". :-)
I am not a lawyer, but I have following idea in mind.
1. We (the german wikipedists) found the "e.V." with the name "Wikimedia" inside. 2. You (or the foundation) tell us (the founded e.V.) official, that you have the rights on the name "Wikimedia", but you allow us to use it, if we make a contract about that topic. 3. Both sign that contract.
The contract should fixate our goals as clearly as possible and usefull. That means, it should not contain something like "The e.V. can use this name as long as it has the same goals like the Wikimedia Foundation". It should explicite tell which goals that are.
Thus we get following situation: If the "e.V." changes it goals, you can say, that we are not allowed anymore to use the name "Wikimedia". If the Wikimedia foundation (for some reason) changes its goals, this does not effect us. You can not say we should change our name, since we does not violate the contract. Thus there would be an organisation with the name Wikimedia following the original goals, even if the Wikimedia foundation does not. Thus it saves the project in two ways.
--Ivo Köthnig