Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic(a)gmail.com>
Poking my head in:
I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
very wrong. Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
The Wikimedia Foundation *is* a corporation, and it should act like
one. That said, I'd describe the problem here is more a lack of
Wikimedia acting like a corporation.
A corporate response to this would be simple, they'd refer the
situation to their licensing department - not argue about it on a
public mailing list.
We did not *argue* about it. We *explain* the issue (in particular since
that might help some of you explain yourself the issue in the next cases
We also referred the situation to the licensing department in *gently*
asking Robert to send an email to the board. Generally we assume good
faith from anyone using the logo and the mark, and generally, assuming
good faith is what is bringing in the best and more courtous feedback,
and allow development of harmonious relationships in the future.
Another solution would be to send a legal notice by a lawyer for any
infringment to anyone using the logo with no permission. But frankly, do
we really want to do that ?
A corporation would have a written trademark
licensing policy which any volunteers who want to poke
into things could refer to (the referral Ant gave to
board(a)wikimedia.org serves nearly the same purpose, though).
Hmmmm. Correct. This said, I would suggest that the *written* trademark
license policy would be best not widely public. In particular when a
financial agreement is concerned :-) Agreements also need to take into
account the situation (is that an agreement for chapter use ? Or for
commercial use ? Or for educational use ?). But, generally I agree, we
need clearer guidelines on the matter and Soufron and others are working
The board address is also a good way to track permission and agreements
as all emails are stored in OTRS ;)