[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Ilario Valdelli]

Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.

I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content 
in another website also commercial.

So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the 
repository may be not free.

Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.



On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German 
> law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but 
> protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is 
> something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go 
> strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be 
> deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of 
> the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission 
> itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.
>
> Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
>> A mark is not a simple image.
>>
>> A mark it's a symbol.
>>
>> On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>>> So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a
>>> picture?
>>>
>>> And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, 
>>> instead of
>>> checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk 
>>> to our
>>> volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
>>> single
>>> source?
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch