[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free"
> license is a copyright license.

So? What does that have to do with the post you are quoting, or
anything else in this thread?

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
>
>> The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are
>> copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's
>> plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the
>> Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to
>> claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they
>> thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just
>> intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does
>> everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The
>> Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible)
>> and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia
>> logos be any different?
>>
>> Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone.



-- 
André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com