[Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Trademark violation of our 'MediaWiki' mark

[Daniel Mayer]

--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> C'mon, you're talking about the headline. 

NOT just the headline, but the body text as well. The whole thing is so badly
written that it confuses their offering (hosting that involves MediaWiki
installs) with the software itself. That is the type of thing that dillutes a
trademark and needs to be defended against if the foundation wishes to keep
control of that mark. 

> They could add "MediaWiki is software created by the
> Wikimedia Foundation", except that the Wikimedia Foundation is only *one* of
> the authors of the software (they certainly own the copyright on anything
> done by the lead developer as part of his duties as an employee). 

This has never been made clear. IIRC, the informal guiding principle on Brion's
paid work on MediaWiki is that he at least controls the copyright. This is
certainly something that needs to be made clear (control and ownership may also
be two different things). 

> Mav also said: "I suggested the name as a play on the foundation's name;
> Wikimedia ->
> MediaWiki." Now there's something I never knew. What was the software called
> before it was called MediaWiki?

<horrid name> "Wikipedia Software Phase II" </horrid name> Once upon a time
somebody suggested the name "PediaWiki", to which the developers and everybody
in earshot ran away screaming from. 
 
> Rowan Collins said: "I know the two can be distinct, but since at no point
> has copyright in
> the software belonged even partially to the WMF" Actually, that's not true.
> WMF currently owns the copyright on anything created by its employees as
> part of their duties.

By default that is standard practice. But I don't know if that was the
understanding between Brion and Jimmy. You'll need to ask them to make that
point clear. 

-- mav


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com