David, it's great to hear you are happy to do this. As far as I know, the only copyrights assigned to the Foundation so far are those of Jimbo and certain edits by Bomis staff. The Foundation doesn't currently have any policies on the handling of its copyrights. I don't know how binding making an informal assignment on the mailing list would be; perhaps a lawyer could advise whether you need to physically sign something.

In terms of benefits, for the Foundation, owning the copyright would be easier than having a licence, as it means it is free to do what it likes with the logo, rather than having any restrictions that might cause problems later on. I'm not sure what the benefits to you are though, other than not having to worry about writing a licence, and not having the Foundation bothering you in years to come about whether they can use the logo for some purpose not originally mentioned in the licence.

Angela (just my thoughts, not on behalf of Wikimedia)

--- David Friedland david@nohat.net wrote on wikipedia-l

...

Before I left on my unannounced wikivacation, Jimbo e-mailed me about the copyright logo. He seemed to be under the impression that I had assigned my rights to the logo to the Wikimedia foundation, but I don't believe that I had.

I am happy to assign my copyrights over the logo to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I am unsure how to do that in a binding way. Furthermore, I don't believe that the Foundation actually owns any copyrights yet and I have some questions about how this will be handled. Has anyone else assigned their copyrights to the Foundation? Are there policies about how the foundation is going to handle the copyrights it holds? What benefit would there be to my assigning the copyright to the foundation rather than just licensing it at no cost for various purposes?

As I said, I am happy to assign the copyrights to the foundation, but I want to be sure of what I am doing before I jump in and do it, because there are no "take-backs" in the world of copyright.

• David Friedland