[Foundation-l] WikiGadugi Wikipedia Rating???
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun Jan 21 22:14:11 UTC 2007
It seems to me that your have a formal problem that requires a formal
response. Am I correct that you require the Wikimedia Foundation to
express publicly that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts the use of
Wikipedia TM to links back to the original Wikipedia content in order to
comply with the requirements of the GPL?
If this is what is required, it seems to me that the WMF needs to decide
if it can make a blanket pronouncement allowing this specific use of the
Wikipedia TM, Wiktionary TM WikiEtc TM.
Jeffrey V. Merkey schreef:
> OK Dominic, lt's g through it. Couple of points I must make first.
> 1. I do not ever use Wikipedia logos, trademarks, or other materials as
> these violate US Trademark laws. I don't care
> if Wikipedia says "Please link back to us with attribution", it is
> irrelevant. I have received no permission from the foundation
> to use its trademarks in such a way. Whether or not the Wikipedia
> community says this is ok and should be done for
> GFDL compliance, the FOUNDATION has given no such consent to anyone, and
> any sites doing it are subject to legal
> action from the Foundation. The Wikipedia Community has **NO** authority
> to release third party sites from
> claims and causes of action from the Foundation for trademark misuse, on
> the **FOUNDATION** has such
> authority. Before I post any attribution back to the Foundation (which
> would make the foundationliable for the
> content) I need the Foundation to grat permission for use of its
> trademarks in this manner.
> 2. http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/WikiGadugi:About points to the GFDL.
> This statement is apprently not
> 3. The date the articles were uploaded and the last author is already
> listed in kanohesdi (history) for each article,
> so this statement is inaccurate.
> I request persmission from the Foundation to use its trademarks solely
> for the purpose attribution as required by the GFDL. Email of such
> consent to
> this list is acceptable as a reply to this email. The foundation must
> release WMG and Wikigadugi from any and all liability, claims, and causes
> of action for the use of its trademarks and names SOLELY for the purpose
> of GFDL compliance. I ca find no page on the wikimedia.org site
> that grants such a release. I will not use or misuse Foundation
> trademarks without such permission.
> Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
>> There are a few problems with the site currently. In order to be in
>> compliance, you must also credit Wikipedia as your source. I'm clicking
>> "random page" and not seeing any articles that do this. They are just
>> direct copies with no reference to Wikipedia. You should have a note,
>> perhaps at the bottom of the page, like:
>> This article is licensed under the <a href="gfdl.html">
>> GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the
>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo">
>> Also, your content does not appear to be licensed under the GFDL; it
>> says on each page: "Content is available under Wikigadugi Public License
>> <http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php/License>." And the link to that
>> license is broken. Your disclaimer and about pages linked at the bottom
>> are also blank, so I'm not sure where the GFDL is posted to your site.
>> In order to comply: You must link to a local copy of the GFDL, you must
>> make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the
>> GFDL license, your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, you
>> must credit Wikipedia and link back to the source article.
>> We also
>> recommend that you include the date of the version copied, so that one
>> is able to clearly figure out the authors by checking the history tab
>> (it will likely have changed since you copied the content, and the
>> authorship will have changed, too).
>> Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>>> Wikigadugi is listed here at:
>>> " ...Either more research is needed, or it is disputed Fail in a very
>>> significant way such as claiming their own copyright without including a
>>> GFDL <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL> notice ..."
>>> Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the
>>> GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our
>>> is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL
>>> and post the GFDL to our site.
>>> I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations
>>> content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
More information about the foundation-l