On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably this would be troublesome for projects linking to them, but if those projects allow "nonfree" images they could have local copies. And if they don't allow "nonfree" images they shouldn't be using the logos in the first place.
Better not turn up the discussion about the hallowed wikipedia logo's copyleft status... A group only ever looks consistent from the outside, and sometimes not even then.
Consistency is the something-or-other of foolish minds, as the saying goes. We make these rules for ourselves; they don't have to be consistent, don't have to be elaborately foolproof logical constructions, they just have to *work* - and if "works" requires seventeen exceptions to encompass stuff like logos and other inftrastructure, some rather verbose footnotes, and a "don't be silly" clause, then that's just reality intruding.
Frankly, what is demoralising about this whole charade is that we seem to have lost the ability to tacitly ignore things - do we really have nothing better to do?