On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)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?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk