Hi,
I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post announcements. Please don't blame me if it isn't.
I just wanted to say that version 0.9 of "Wikipedia on iPod" (Encyclopodia) is now available for download at:
http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.net
Encyclopodia comes with a setup wizard for Windows. Installation from Linux and Mac is also possible, but it's still a bit tricky as there isn't any easy to use setup wizard for Linux and Mac yet.
Currently, the English, German and Italian Wikipedia can be loaded on your iPod. If you're interested in another language, please send me an e-mail.
Have fun, Robert Bamler
Disclaimer: Use this software at your own risk. It might damage your iPod, void your warranty or blow up your golden hamster.
On 2/28/06, Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post announcements. Please don't blame me if it isn't.
I just wanted to say that version 0.9 of "Wikipedia on iPod" (Encyclopodia) is now available for download at:
http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.netEncyclopodia comes with a setup wizard for Windows. Installation from Linux and Mac is also possible, but it's still a bit tricky as there isn't any easy to use setup wizard for Linux and Mac yet.
Currently, the English, German and Italian Wikipedia can be loaded on your iPod. If you're interested in another language, please send me an e-mail.
This is great. Would you please add a copyright notice about Wikipedia to the copyright notice on your page? E.g.
Copyright (c) 2006 - Robert Bamler (Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de).
Wikipedia content (c) 2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Copyright (c) 2006 - Robert Bamler (Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de).
Wikipedia content (c) 2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors
A list of which is provided with each article including the user names of those who have contributed.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
There is no excuse not to fully comply with the GFDL: Encyclopodia is not made of paper.
Hello,
This is great. Would you please add a copyright notice about Wikipedia to the copyright notice on your page? E.g.
The screenshots of on the website are citations of the Wikipedia-article and therefore don't need a full copyright notice. However -- as I suspect you can't sleep at night while knowing that a handful of words are not decorated with a proper copyright notice that is about three times as long as the words themselves -- I can add the copyright notice ;-)
I hope you feel better now, ;-) Robert
On 2/28/06, Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
Hello,
This is great. Would you please add a copyright notice about Wikipedia to the copyright notice on your page? E.g.
The screenshots of on the website are citations of the Wikipedia-article and therefore don't need a full copyright notice. However -- as I suspect you can't sleep at night while knowing that a handful of words are not decorated with a proper copyright notice that is about three times as long as the words themselves -- I can add the copyright notice ;-)
I hope you feel better now, ;-)
How about the content on the IPOD. :)
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
It does have a copyright notice which includes a link to the complete text of the GFDL. It also includes a list of all authors.
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi Wikipedians,
Daniel Mayer schrieb am 01.03.2006 00:11:
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
It does have a copyright notice which includes a link to the complete text of the GFDL. It also includes a list of all authors.
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
Because the iPod is an offline device, it's highly likely that the link points to a local GFDL texftile.
Bye, avatar.
Aside from the GFDL notices, I'd like to see a screenshot of how this would look on the larger color screen of the video iPod (which I am getting this week, so I guess I could test it out if I ever feel like it)
And I wonder how much space this takes up
On 2/28/06, Tim 'avatar' Bartel wikipedia@computerkultur.org wrote:
Hi Wikipedians,
Daniel Mayer schrieb am 01.03.2006 00:11:
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
It does have a copyright notice which includes a link to the complete
text of
the GFDL. It also includes a list of all authors.
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent
you an offlist question
about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get
permission to do that?
Because the iPod is an offline device, it's highly likely that the link points to a local GFDL texftile.
Bye, avatar.
-- But we made our own fun, mostly. I recall a time, many years later, when American children seemed unable to amuse themselves without a fortune in electrical and electronic equipment.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
--- Tim 'avatar' Bartel wikipedia@computerkultur.org wrote:
Daniel Mayer schrieb am 01.03.2006 00:11:
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
It does have a copyright notice which includes a link to the complete text of the GFDL. It also includes a list of all authors.
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
Because the iPod is an offline device, it's highly likely that the link points to a local GFDL texftile.
I assumed that is the case as well but needed confirmation from somebody who has access to the software on an iPod. Since I don't have an iPod, I can't test my assumption.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello Daniel,
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
1. From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod is an offline device)
2. I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
3. Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
Good night, Robert
On 2/28/06, Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Daniel,
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
- From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod is an offline device)
I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
Hey -- again, i think this is very cool, not trying to be annoying. I didn't mean for you to put up a copyright notice for the screenshots, but for the ebook libraries... http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.net/en/library.html
And you probably shouldn't be using the Wikipedia logo.
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
- From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod is an offline device)
My intent is not to annoy you, but to clarify some legal issues. You said link. Given widespread improper usage, that could easily be interpreted as stating the network location. For example, just writing http://gnu.org/fdl.htm - the link need not be active.
- I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
You only said that you removed the image from the website. Is the image also on the iPod database you provide? I dont have an iPod so cant check. But the much, much larger issue is trademark related. IANAL, but the way you have used the trademarked term Wikipedia seems to me to require some sort of permission from the trademark holder (the Wikimedia Foundation).
Asking if such permission had been sought and given is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
- Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
Please dont feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be proactively protected or they could be lost. -- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
- From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod is an offline device)
My intent is not to annoy you, but to clarify some legal issues. You said link. Given widespread improper usage, that could easily be interpreted as stating the network location. For example, just writing http://gnu.org/fdl.htm - the link need not be active.
- I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
You only said that you removed the image from the website. Is the image also on the iPod database you provide? I dont have an iPod so cant check. But the much, much larger issue is trademark related. IANAL, but the way you have used the trademarked term Wikipedia seems to me to require some sort of permission from the trademark holder (the Wikimedia Foundation).
Asking if such permission had been sought and given is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
- Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be proactively protected or they could be lost.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Before anything, Robert, Wikipedia on ipod looks wonderful. I do not have an ipod myself, so I can not *test*, but the very idea is great. Thank you for taking care of this.
Now, far from being willing to annoy you, I regret to tell you that Mav is correct in his questions.
You mentionned on the web page "Wikipedia content (screenshots): © 2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, etc...."
This is just correct. BUT, while the content is free to use, the logo and the brand name are not free to use by anyone. So, you need to have an authorization for this.
So, I would be happy that something is done about that. You may contact board AT wikimedia.org on the topic. Please, do not feel "assaulted", this is just basic requirement...
A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia itself. This is in particular due to the fact you called the software "encyclopodia". Have you thought of providing a link for donations to the Foundation currently supporting the Wikipedia project itself ? If not, I can certify it would be appreciated ;-)
I should have an ipod someday...
Ant
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
- From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod is an offline device)
My intent is not to annoy you, but to clarify some legal issues. You said link. Given widespread improper usage, that could easily be interpreted as stating the network location. For example, just writing http://gnu.org/fdl.htm - the link need not be active.
- I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
You only said that you removed the image from the website. Is the image also on the iPod database you provide? I don’t have an iPod so can’t check. But the much, much larger issue is trademark related. IANAL, but the way you have used the trademarked term ‘Wikipedia’ seems to me to require some sort of permission from the trademark holder (the Wikimedia Foundation).
Asking if such permission had been sought and given is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
- Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be proactively protected or they could be lost.
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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. Period.
On 3/1/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Before anything, Robert, Wikipedia on ipod looks wonderful. I do not have an ipod myself, so I can not *test*, but the very idea is great. Thank you for taking care of this.
Now, far from being willing to annoy you, I regret to tell you that Mav is correct in his questions.
You mentionned on the web page "Wikipedia content (screenshots): (c) 2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, etc...."
This is just correct. BUT, while the content is free to use, the logo and the brand name are not free to use by anyone. So, you need to have an authorization for this.
So, I would be happy that something is done about that. You may contact board AT wikimedia.org on the topic. Please, do not feel "assaulted", this is just basic requirement...
A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia itself. This is in particular due to the fact you called the software "encyclopodia". Have you thought of providing a link for donations to the Foundation currently supporting the Wikipedia project itself ? If not, I can certify it would be appreciated ;-)
I should have an ipod someday...
Ant
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
- From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod is an offline device)
My intent is not to annoy you, but to clarify some legal issues. You said link. Given widespread improper usage, that could easily be interpreted as stating the network location. For example, just writing http://gnu.org/fdl.htm - the link need not be active.
- I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
You only said that you removed the image from the website. Is the image also on the iPod database you provide? I don't have an iPod so can't check. But the much, much larger issue is trademark related. IANAL, but the way you have used the trademarked term 'Wikipedia' seems to me to require some sort of permission from the trademark holder (the Wikimedia Foundation).
Asking if such permission had been sought and given is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
- Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be proactively protected or they could be lost.
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
--- Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
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. Period.
The spread of Wikipedia content is not at all hindered by protecting the Wikipedia trademark. No reason to conflate the two.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I agree (and sorry for being so unspecific and harsh). I guess what bothers me is the tone of urgency: Balmer's done a service for wikipedia (though also for himself, since he's collecting donations =) ) and it's important to encourage that kind of thing.
On 3/1/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
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. Period.
The spread of Wikipedia content is not at all hindered by protecting the Wikipedia trademark. No reason to conflate the two.
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Oops -- sorry, I didn't see Ant's email before I wrote. That explains it, then. But if over-reaching use of wikipedia logos et al is getting pretty common, maybe there should be a system with a philosphy similar to that of the system used to notify potential vandals: that is, assume good faith, and begin with very friendly notices, then scale up to more urgent warnings.
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I agree (and sorry for being so unspecific and harsh). I guess what bothers me is the tone of urgency: Balmer's done a service for wikipedia (though also for himself, since he's collecting donations =) ) and it's important to encourage that kind of thing.
On 3/1/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
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. Period.
The spread of Wikipedia content is not at all hindered by protecting the Wikipedia trademark. No reason to conflate the two.
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Ben Yates wrote:
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. Period.
I *do* understand your argument Ben. However, there are two points that could not be emphasized enough and which explain at least Mav and my reaction.
First, Wikipedia mission is to gather knowledge and make it available as much as possible. However, the name itself is becoming quite famous and some people (I am not particularly talking about Robert here) or organisations or corporations are trying to use this fame for their own benefit. If that benefit is essentially to increase knowledge collection or knowledge distribution, fine. So much the better. However, some are trying to use the logo or the brand only to make financial benefits or are using them in such a way it gives a certain coloring to our project (which could damage our claim of neutrality). We must avoid this. Which means we must to a certain extent control the uses made of the name/logo. This is for our protection and for the protection of our work. If for some reasons the name becomes associated to a political party or to a commercial firm, we'll be the losers.
Second. It is not because the content is free of charge and not because the greatest majority of us working to make that resource and to make it available are working for FREE, that the whole tower is living of water and love exclusively. Just as most philantropic activities, it needs financial input. To the best of my knowledge, we are NOT making profit of Wikipedia content. We are constantly looking for money to support its goals. To support the wiki and servers running is a minimum (the ongoing server purchase is of 140 000 dollars). And to find way to further distribute content would be better. And this requires money. Better face it :-) The organisation (Wikimedia Foundation, not Wikipedia) needs money. And needs in many ways to be run as a "corporation". That does not mean its goal is to *make* profit.
Ant
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
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. Period.
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. A corporation would have a written trademark licensing policy which any volunteers who want to poke their heads into things could refer to (the referral Ant gave to board@wikimedia.org serves nearly the same purpose, though).
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
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. Period.
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 their heads into things could refer to (the referral Ant gave to board@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 on this.
The board address is also a good way to track permission and agreements as all emails are stored in OTRS ;)
Anthony
Ant
On 3/2/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
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. Period.
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 :-)).
I'd certainly describe the exchange between Daniel Mayer and Robert Bamler to be arguing. But maybe I just misread things.
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.
*You* gently asked Robert to send an email to the board. You weren't one of the ones I was talking about. In fact, given the apparent lack of preplanning over situations like this I think your response was about as good of one that there could be.
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 ?
I don't know what you want to do. What I think would make the most sense would be to point to a policy page where it explains that anyone can get a free license for certain non-profit purposes such as this one. But that's just what I'd do in your situation. What I was talking about was that the policy be made clear, not that it be one way or another.
A corporation would have a written trademark
licensing policy which any volunteers who want to poke their heads into things could refer to (the referral Ant gave to board@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 :-)
First of all, by written, I include something written on a computer and distributed over the internet. Secondly, I was only referring to the policy, not necessarily the legal agreement itself. Of course, having the standard agreement available for everyone to see wouldn't be a horrible thing. There's no reason, in my opinion, that Wikipedia's standard trademark license shouldn't be as accessible as their standard copyright license.
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 on this.
There's no need for the policy to cover all situations, of course. But it would be nice to have an idea of what kinds of licenses one can get. I understand you're probably trying to get some price discrimination among the commercial reusers, but your guidelines could always be silent on those issues where you intend to charge. (Of course, that's kind of a shitty thing to do. Some sort of standard license for commercial redistribution should probably be offered. Those big shots who can manage to negotiate better deals could still do so.)
The board address is also a good way to track permission and agreements as all emails are stored in OTRS ;)
Sure, and as I said, referring to the board address was nearly as good. In fact, I don't really have a problem with your response to the situation.
I think it's important that an organization have explicit channels for dealing with things such as licensing, and that volunteers within the organization don't step outside of those channels and act authoritative on those matters. Further, it should be crystal clear to the public who is authoritative on what matters and who isn't. It took 15 posts before someone finally said, "contact X to get authorization". And it's still up in the air whether or not that authorization is going to be given, because there's no public written policy on the matter.
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd certainly describe the exchange between Daniel Mayer and Robert Bamler to be arguing. But maybe I just misread things.
I was simply asking some legitimate questions; the first set was offlist, but when that set was not answered adequately I restated the questions on the list. Robert interpreted my questions as an attack and assumed an argumentative tone. The questions were not an attack and I did not reciprocate in tone. An argument is a heated discussion between two or more people; if only one person is heated, is it still an argument?
As for your other points; it is being worked on by our legal officer and his team.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello,
I really don't want to poke in any further, but just to make this clear for the other readers of this thread:
[...] the first set was offlist, but when that set was not answered adequately I restated the questions on the list.
Just want to make clear that I had answered the offlist question immediately, several hours before Daniel asked the same question again on this list. My answer even included an apology. So I hope you understand why -- after Daniel pretended not to have received my reply and asked me the same question again on this list -- I got the impression he wanted to annoy me.
I'm sorry if I got this wrong and I hope we have cleared this now.
Regards, Robert
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
I really don't want to poke in any further, but just to make this clear for the other readers of this thread:
[...] the first set was offlist, but when that set was not answered adequately I restated the questions on the list.
Just want to make clear that I had answered the offlist question immediately, several hours before Daniel asked the same question again on this list. My answer even included an apology. So I hope you understand why -- after Daniel pretended not to have received my reply and asked me the same question again on this list -- I got the impression he wanted to annoy me.
My original offlist email to you was made quickly and thus may not have been as clear as it should have been. I apologize if that is the case. I also want to be clear that I think your use of Wikipedia content is absolutely wonderful. The only issues I had pertained to the use of the trademark that went well-beyond giving credit. All the major issues and most of the minor ones now seem to be moot due to your quick changes - at least as far as the webpage is concerned. I still have not heard whether or not the logo that appears to be on a splash/intro screen on the iPod has been removed (IANAL, but if images are allowed in articles on the iPod, then, of course, the logo would be fair use in the article about Wikipedia ; but fair use would not apply to use on an intro/loading/splash screen).
Our legal officer will have a standard trademark and logo use agreement ready in a while though.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello,
least as far as the webpage is concerned. I still have not heard whether or not the logo that appears to be on a splash/intro screen on the iPod has been removed
This must be a misunderstanding. Encyclopodia doesn't have a splash screen, the image in the Encyclopodia-installer [1] is just an illustration. I'll remove the Wikipedia-logo from that image soon.
Sorry for that confusion, Robert
--- Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
Hello,
least as far as the webpage is concerned. I still have not heard whether or not the logo that appears to be on a splash/intro screen on the iPod has been removed
This must be a misunderstanding. Encyclopodia doesn't have a splash screen, the image in the Encyclopodia-installer [1] is just an illustration. I'll remove the Wikipedia-logo from that image soon.
Sorry for that confusion,
Ah - Cool, thanks :)
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I think it's important that an organization have explicit channels for dealing with things such as licensing, and that volunteers within the organization don't step outside of those channels and act authoritative on those matters. Further, it should be crystal clear to the public who is authoritative on what matters and who isn't. It took 15 posts before someone finally said, "contact X to get authorization". And it's still up in the air whether or not that authorization is going to be given, because there's no public written policy on the matter.
You've got a point. Generally, I'd say that on such matters, right now, best is to send an email to board AT wikimedia.org. We forward those mails to the legal team when needed. If the person needs a phone contact and in particular if the person is english speaking, then best to call the Foundation itself in Florida.
This said... In the process of working on business development, I expect an email address will soon be available to forward request of partnership or business deals. I expect one day we'll have more such emails addresses for specific issues and we should have an efficient contact page on the foundation website.
Current reference is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us
Please use this link on the sites to orient requests.
For those who can help with the translations, please help keep this page properly updated. Thanks
Ant
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
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. Period.
I, for one, am very glad to see Wikipedia take a strong stand on trademark issues involving the wikimedia foundation. My efforts, freely given, are done so with the understanding that the effort & goal is to create a "free HIGH QUALITY encyclopedia."
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. Otherwise, forks that start with wikipedia articles and then change them (in ways that gain notoriety), or include gobs of advertising, etc., if allowed to use wikpedia trademarks, dilute the value of wikipedia in users minds, create bad press, and harm the reputation of the encyclopdia and the open edit model.
Jim
On 3/2/06, Jim trodel@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.
Otherwise, forks that start with wikipedia articles and then change them (in ways that gain notoriety), or include gobs of advertising, etc., if allowed to use wikpedia trademarks, dilute the value of wikipedia in users minds, create bad press, and harm the reputation of the encyclopdia and the open edit model.
Jim
And as far as I can tell, none of that is happening here. As I understand it, these articles weren't changed at all, and there isn't any advertising.
Anthony
On 3/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jim trodel@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.
It may be original source now, but how does wikimedia foundation make sure that it continues to be?
One way is through control of their trademark.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jim trodel@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
Hi,
A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia itself.
You've got a point there. OK, so this is what I'll do: I'll add a notice on the donation page that clarifyes that this is not Wikipedia. And I'll contact the board at wikimedia.org whether I'm allowed to use the term "Wikipedia" on my page.
So, finally, I hope that everyone can sleep without fear tonight. But don't be too lazy, you've still got a lot to do [1] ;-)
Regards, Robert
[1]http://www.google.com/search?&q=wikipedia+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-site%3A...
What [computer] language is this written in?
I'd like to see a color version written for the 3G iPod w/ Photo (I believe that's the first photo one right? Or did they start @ 4?), 4G iPod, iPod Nano and 5G video iPod. Perhaps even have images included? That would be awesome.
And maybe i could help a little bit with my VERY limited computer programming skills [meaning we'd need someone good at programming w/ a color iPod working with me].
The only thing I'm concerned about is "Disclaimer: Use this software at your own risk. It might damage your iPod" Couldn't you just reset the software if anything happened? I'm just sort of paranoid about my day-old $300 baby :P
On 3/1/06, Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler.epodia@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia itself.
You've got a point there. OK, so this is what I'll do: I'll add a notice on the donation page that clarifyes that this is not Wikipedia. And I'll contact the board at wikimedia.org whether I'm allowed to use the term "Wikipedia" on my page.
So, finally, I hope that everyone can sleep without fear tonight. But don't be too lazy, you've still got a lot to do [1] ;-)
Regards, Robert
[1]http://www.google.com/search?&q=wikipedia+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-site%3A... _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
Robert Bamler wrote:
Hi,
A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia itself.
You've got a point there. OK, so this is what I'll do: I'll add a notice on the donation page that clarifyes that this is not Wikipedia. And I'll contact the board at wikimedia.org whether I'm allowed to use the term "Wikipedia" on my page.
So, finally, I hope that everyone can sleep without fear tonight. But don't be too lazy, you've still got a lot to do [1] ;-)
Regards, Robert
[1]http://www.google.com/search?&q=wikipedia+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-site%3A...
Hi Robert
Thanks a lot for the clarification and link to our donation page. I appreciate that.
Best regards
Ant
Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [060301 12:18]:
Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be proactively protected or they could be lost.
It did however strike me as churlish that the very first responses on the list to a cool new project were not "hey, cool new project!" but "CEASE, VIOLATOR. OR SUSPECTED VIOLATOR, ANYWAY."
- d.
my first response was 'hey, cool new project!'
although it doesn't work on 5G :(
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [060301 12:18]:
Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want
to make sure that your
great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held
trademarks. Trademarks *must* be
proactively protected or they could be lost.
It did however strike me as churlish that the very first responses on the list to a cool new project were not "hey, cool new project!" but "CEASE, VIOLATOR. OR SUSPECTED VIOLATOR, ANYWAY."
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [060301 12:18]:
Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be proactively protected or they could be lost.
It did however strike me as churlish that the very first responses on the list to a cool new project were not "hey, cool new project!" but "CEASE, VIOLATOR. OR SUSPECTED VIOLATOR, ANYWAY."
Your memory is faulty.
From me, the very first response:
"This is great. Would you please add a copyright notice about Wikipedia to the copyright notice on your page? E.g. ..."
From Anthere:
"Before anything, Robert, Wikipedia on ipod looks wonderful. I do not have an ipod myself, so I can not *test*, but the very idea is great. Thank you for taking care of this.
Now, far from being willing to annoy you, I regret to tell you that Mav is correct in his questions. ...."
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [060301 12:18]:
Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that
your
great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks
*must* be
proactively protected or they could be lost.
It did however strike me as churlish that the very first responses on the list to a cool new project were not "hey, cool new project!" but "CEASE, VIOLATOR. OR SUSPECTED VIOLATOR, ANYWAY."
Your memory is faulty.
Also my first email about this was offlist and started with a compliment on how cool I thought the whole thing was.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 18:11, Daniel Mayer wrote:
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
I have been following this discussion to some extent, and have often wondered about the Wikipedia policies but never really looked into it substantively. However, this thread inspired me -- or rather disappointed me -- and so I looked around a bit and thought I would make a couple, hopefully productive, comments.
At the W3C, I worked with our counsel to develop the various copyright and trademark policies for the W3C. There, like here, we wanted our content -- specifications -- to be as widely as accessible as possible but also preserve the integrity of the specification. The challenges then, from the point of trademark were to: 1. Follow practices that would permit us to apply for and keep our marks. One of the great difficulties here was getting W3C staff to use the the marks descriptively (an adjective). Sun is great at this with their Java, if you look at the page, Java what is never used as a noun: http://java.sun.com/ Wikipedia is commonly used as a noun, and I'm surprised that did not cause any problems in the registration, and wonder if the will calls problems in the future.
2. Permit others to use those terms in a way that did not seem heavy-handed, but did not weaken the mark. One of the innovations there, I think, was the trademark license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/trademark-license-20021231 In it, others can use the trademark but only if they identify the owner, described the W3C "product", and accurately disclose its status. Otherwise, "4. Marks may not be used to indicate any kind of endorsement by the W3C, official status with respect to the W3C, or any kind of relationship with the W3C aside from a representation that the above requirements (1-3) have been met."
Wikipedia is noted as a registered trademark at the bottom of every page, but it is not easy to discern where the trademark is registered, whether common law trademark claims or otherwise made, and what policies govern its usage -- even to say "send an e-mail here."
I will also point out the logo policies : http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308
So, for Wikipedia's sake, it would probably be useful to have a link any legal footer to a basic policy and how to request exceptions to it.
We're working on it :-)
Actually, I am now finishing the drafts of these policies. I hope it will be ready in a few days/weeks.
Best,
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wikimedia foundation chief legal officer
Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 18:11, Daniel Mayer wrote:
A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?
I have been following this discussion to some extent, and have often wondered about the Wikipedia policies but never really looked into it substantively. However, this thread inspired me -- or rather disappointed me -- and so I looked around a bit and thought I would make a couple, hopefully productive, comments.
At the W3C, I worked with our counsel to develop the various copyright and trademark policies for the W3C. There, like here, we wanted our content -- specifications -- to be as widely as accessible as possible but also preserve the integrity of the specification. The challenges then, from the point of trademark were to:
- Follow practices that would permit us to apply for and keep our marks.
One of the great difficulties here was getting W3C staff to use the the marks descriptively (an adjective). Sun is great at this with their Java, if you look at the page, Java what is never used as a noun: http://java.sun.com/ Wikipedia is commonly used as a noun, and I'm surprised that did not cause any problems in the registration, and wonder if the will calls problems in the future.
- Permit others to use those terms in a way that did not seem heavy-handed,
but did not weaken the mark. One of the innovations there, I think, was the trademark license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/trademark-license-20021231 In it, others can use the trademark but only if they identify the owner, described the W3C "product", and accurately disclose its status. Otherwise, "4. Marks may not be used to indicate any kind of endorsement by the W3C, official status with respect to the W3C, or any kind of relationship with the W3C aside from a representation that the above requirements (1-3) have been met."
Wikipedia is noted as a registered trademark at the bottom of every page, but it is not easy to discern where the trademark is registered, whether common law trademark claims or otherwise made, and what policies govern its usage -- even to say "send an e-mail here."
I will also point out the logo policies : http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308
So, for Wikipedia's sake, it would probably be useful to have a link any legal footer to a basic policy and how to request exceptions to it. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi Robert, this is great news. I would love to have Chinese (either simplified or traditional) and French, as well. How often is the content updated? What kind of scripts are you using to produce the result?
On 2/28/06, Robert Bamler Robert.Bamler@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post announcements. Please don't blame me if it isn't.
I just wanted to say that version 0.9 of "Wikipedia on iPod" (Encyclopodia) is now available for download at:
http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.netEncyclopodia comes with a setup wizard for Windows. Installation from Linux and Mac is also possible, but it's still a bit tricky as there isn't any easy to use setup wizard for Linux and Mac yet.
Currently, the English, German and Italian Wikipedia can be loaded on your iPod. If you're interested in another language, please send me an e-mail.
Have fun, Robert Bamler
Disclaimer: Use this software at your own risk. It might damage your iPod, void your warranty or blow up your golden hamster. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ++SJ
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org